The good people of Elyria, Ohio are in an uproar with the appearance of a school poster featuring a “Gay Jesus.” The poster was the work of a student atheist group at Lorain County Community College and the students are now facing allegations of violating school prohibitions of insulting a religious faith.
I can actually claim the distinction of visiting Elyria repeatedly as lead counsel in the espionage case of Petty Office Danny King, who returned to Elyria after we won the case. Nice town. Nice people. But it appears that this poster has caused something of an uproar over freedom of speech versus respect for the religion of others.
The poster was made as part of Club Awareness Week, along with many other displays advertising student-run extracurricular organizations. If they weren’t before, people are certainly aware of the atheist club now. Activists for Atheism at LCCC have been swamped with complaints and notified that the poster violates a rather sweeping school policy: “Harassing any person(s) verbally, in writing, by graphic illustration, or physically, including any abuse, defamatory comments, signs or signals intended to mock or ridicule race, religion, age, sex, color, disability, sexual orientation, or national or ethnic origin” is not allowed.
That is a remarkably broad prohibition, particularly in an academic setting where students are supposed to engage in free and passionate debates.
The poster is referencing a passage of the so-called Secret Gospel of Mark — found inscribed in a letter by Greek historian Clement of Alexandria. One section suggests that after Jesus resurrected a man from the dead, he had an intimate relationship with him.
The controversial passages falls between verses 34 and 35 of Mark 10:
And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, ‘Son of David, have mercy on me.’ But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.
It is viewed as entirely false and outrageous by many Christians. In the meantime, the school will have to decide whether such debates are part of the academic experience or should be banned as offensive to religious sensibilities. I tend to favor free speech and leave the merits to such debates to the students and faculty to hash out.
For the full story, click here.
I mean, come on — the guy hung out only with other guys, never dated, and lived with his Mom. No reason to think he was any straighter than Barbie’s phony boyfriend, Ken.
The clear intent of the group was to shock, offend, and attack a religion. They apparently do not think their beliefs can stand on their own merits. The norm for atheists, at least the ones I have heard, is to attack religions rather than promote atheism on it’s own merits and point out all of the good things atheism and atheist have produced.
It is unfortunate when one group feels it can only promote itself by attacking other groups. The irony is that is what many religions have done. Maybe the these atheists have just traded one “belief” for another.
While the school should promote honest debate it should not allow attacks meant to shock and offend. That detracts from the debate rather than adds to it. What’s next the Nazis club putting up posters showing Jews stealing money?
>>It is unfortunate when one group feels it can only promote itself by attacking other groups<<
/cough.McCain./endcough
Mnoble,
Not all Atheists are the same. You probably know more Atheists and Agnostics then you know. Every group has loudmouthed and overly in your face missionaries, especially groups that are maligned by the majority of society. I’ve generally found those types annoying, especially when I agree with them. However, sometimes “Shocking and offensive” is a good way to get through to people, or draw attention to an issue. Do you think Luther’s famous nailing of his “95 Thesis” to a church was meant to do anything BUT shock and offend? What about Mingus’s tune Fables of Faubus? The same motivated numerous other works of art, pieces of literature, and acts of protest.
Regardless of how much shocking and offensive comments add to a debate, they still fall under the category of Free Speech. Free Speech doesn’t just apply nice, polite, well reasoned debate, it also applies to stupid obnoxious teenage idiocy.
Excuse me: 95 Theses
Joel Rosenberg said;
I mean, come on — the guy hung out only with other guys, never dated, and lived with his Mom.
Not true Joel. Most actual biblical scholars understand that Jesus was married, apparently to Mary Magdalene, who was not a prostitute as is commonly believed, but Jesus’s wife.
Jesus was a Rabbi, 30 years of age, married, and most likely with children. He was a stone mason by trade, and was well read in the torah, and taught freqently in his rabbinical role in the local synagogues.
The likelyhood of Jesus engaging in homosexual relations is improbable at best. He neither condemned or condoned sexual relations out of wedlock, but whenever engaged in the topic, he encouraged martial relations only and discouraged all else.
“Harassing any person(s) verbally, in writing, by graphic illustration, or physically, including any abuse, defamatory comments, signs or signals intended to mock or ridicule race, religion, age, sex, color, disability, sexual orientation, or national or ethnic origin” is not allowed.”
———————————————————————
I’m not cetain this falls into any of the categories mentioned above. Exactly who is being harassed, defamed or ridiculed here? How is presenting Jesus as gay causing harm? How is referencing sources outside the current text of the bible doing harm? The bible that we know now coexisted with many other texts for hundreds of years. I personally do not read the quoted passage as Jesus having a homosexual relation with the young man but it would be interesting to ask biblical scholars who read the original language to see what they think. If churches can imagine Jesus as blond haired and blue eyed, as a man dressed in medieval or current clothing who’s the world’s best business leader ever, why can’t Jesus be imagined as gay or even as a gay female? It is provacative to create unorthodox visions of Jesus. Provoking thought is not the same thing as harassment.
Jill, I am not a scholar, however I was a seminary student for many years as a young man.
There is no serious school of thought that construed Jesus as a homosexual, nor to gnostic writings hold much water in this theory. There is a school of thought that professes the character sitting to the left of Jesus in Da Vinci’s, “The Last Supper”, was John, purposely painted effeminate to suggest a gay relationship between Jesus and John. After all, John is normally associated with “the disciple whom Jesus loved” by most catholic scholars, primarily because of a male dominated clergy during the translation and authorization of the canon. Women were not considered “important” back when King James undertook the English translation, and the idea of a woman having too prominent of a role in the life of Christ was not in line with concepts of chastity, purity and celibacy. However most serious scholars today admit that Da Vinci most likely included Mary Magdalene in his painting of the “Last Supper”, sitting to the right of Jesus, her rightward leaning forming the “V” for indicating the feminine and the relationship between the two. And the fact that the “disciple” who was not referred to an apostle (considered a masculine title) but by the term “disciple” which could include anyone who followed him, makes it clear John intended someone other than himself. John was close with Jesus, closer than most of the apostles, and no doubt was close to his wife, Mary Magdalene, who played a prominent role in comings and goings of the 12 apostles.
Additionally, the gnostics and the apocrypha which you asked about, both point to Mary Magdelene being the “disciple” whom Jesus loved, even identifying her as his wife.
Jesus would have had to have been married at the time, per the Law of Moses to posses the title “Rabbi”, and it is fairly well accepted that the wedding feast in Cana, which is where the first of Jesus’s recorded miracles took place, and generally accepted where his ministry began, was likely his own wedding, which would explain his mothers prominent role at the festivities.
There’s a lot of theory out there, but most of it falls apart in the light of the canon, the gnostic gospels, and the apocrypha, and a general understanding of Jewish law per the law of Moses around 30 CE.
Atheism is by definition an offensive belief system, much like many of the religions it is designed to dismiss. After all, forming a belief system to dismiss and refute others personal beliefs is clearly intended to stir up antagonism, so we shouldn’t be surprised by these atheists and their “gay Jesus”. Nor should we be offended.
After all, many Christian religions teach that most of us are headed for an eternity of torment in a lake of fire and brimstone (try explaining the poetic and figurative nature of the Aramaic language spoken by Jesus at the time to one of these “Evangelicals”) so clearly religion tends to also be antagonistic towards the “non believers”. Hell they killed us for 2000 years for not believing in their man made dogmas.
So it’s not hard to say that the atheists here were being antagonistic towards religion, nor is it hard to say “so what?”.
Both atheism and most fundamental religions share one thing in common. A predisposition to shut out facts, logic or evidence, in light of a pre-supposed set of beliefs, that may or may not be founded in reality. Atheism is as closed minded a belief system as is most fundamental theology, and therefore should be taken, parden the pun, “with a grain of salt”.
CroMM,
Your comparison between Atheism and organized religions falls short on a few levels: There’s no central figure in Atheism, you don’t have to accept the teachings of _____ to be an Atheist. Most Atheists I know weren’t “converted” or “raised in the faith,” they came to the realization on their own that they didn’t believe in a god. There is no suggested course of action like in organized religion, no system of morals, no basic tenet.
Also, I would like an example of what facts that I’m (in case people hadn’t guessed yet, I’m an Atheist) predisposed to shut out? I can give you examples of what facts (which are mainly just theories with lots of data to back them up) fundamentalists are willing to shut out: carbon dating to establish the age of the Earth, Helioseismic dating of the age of our Sun, lack of Geologic evidence for a worldwide flood, Genetic evidence for a Single origin theory, etc. I’ll provide links to references of any of those topics you wish. Your turn.
Furthermore to say that Atheism was “formed” for any purpose, good or bad, is completely false. There was no “Formation” of Atheism, just various people being willing to say “I don’t believe in a god.” As a side note you’ll note, nothing about that says that we need to refute others belief in a god.
Sorry Gyges, but you couldn’t be more far from accurate here.
Atheism indeed possesses all the trappings of ordinary religion, right down to sectarian divisions, doctrine based on belief and not fact, and a natural tendency to shun those outside of their own circles of belief.
An offical example of those beliefs was presented to the United States Supreme Court in the case of Murray v. Curlett where atheists petitioned the SCOTUS to remove Bible reading in the public schools.
Here are some of the “beliefs” the atheists presented to the court.
—
“Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their beliefs as follows.
An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.
An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.
An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.
He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.
He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.
He believes that we are our brother’s keepers; and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.”
Like it or not, these constitute a clear “belief system”, sectarian in nature (as not all atheists groups profess identical beliefs, just like sectarian divisions in religion) and constitute a whole slew of claims and assertations founded in personal belief, and not science or fact.
Atheism is a belief system, by definition, irregardless of atheists attempts to silence that definition, much like the religionists attempts as silencing anything that doesn’t fit with their own perceptions of themselves.
And like most atheists, you prefer word games to try and conceal the fact that your belief that there is no god, is somehow not a discredit of anothers beleifs, which it is.
Also your attempts to call it a “disbelief” in god, thus it is not a belief that there is no god, is another less than cranial attempt to play word games while ignoring the facts.
The fact is you can say it either way.
A “disbelief” in god is the same as a “belief that there is no god”.
So says logic.
So says reality.
So says the dictionary.
—
a·the·ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm]
–noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
Random House Unabridged Dictionary
Like the religionists, in the face of fact, like the Dictionary for example, the atheist invariably retorts to the less than cerebral, “nuh uh”.
But it doesn’t change reality. It just further confirms the atheists ability, like the religionists, to supress the facts for their own personal beliefs.
—
atheism
noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
—
atheism [ˈeiθiizəm] noun
the belief that there is no God
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary, © 2000-2006 K Dictionaries Ltd.
—
atheism [(ay-thee-iz-uhm)]
Denial that there is a God.
The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005
—
Atheism
1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary
—-
Whether you like it or not, atheism is indeed a belief system, your personal “beliefs” aside.
Saying you “disbelieve in god” is the same as saying you “believe there is no god”.
Just as my saying “I disbelieve you are correct” is the same as my saying “I believe you are incorrect”.
It’s the same thing, but atheists, like religionists, will strain the very bounds of logic trying to convince people that their “belief system” is somehow not one.
Here, here is a set of “beliefs” from your non beleif system, published online for all to see, at http://www.ATHEIST.org.
We Are Atheists Because…
There is no proof of the existence of god.
There is no need of, or use for, a god.
A good god would be useless if it were not powerful.
A powerful god would not deserve worship if he were not good.
There is no all-powerful good god; otherwise there would be no imperfection.
If this is the best world god can make, the stories of Heaven must be lies.
History shows that godism is accompanied by ignorance and superstition.
There has never been such intolerance and persecution as godists have practiced.
Godism had to be fought when humankind made its successive steps toward science, liberty, and reform.
And these “teachings” of this particular (and largest) sect of atheism in the US.
Atheism Teaches That…
There is no heavenly father.
Humankind must protect the orphans and foundlings, or they will not be protected.
There is no god to answer prayer.
Man must hear and help man.
There is no hell.
We have no vindictive god or devil to fear or imitate.
There is no atonement or salvation by faith.
We must face the consequences of our acts.
There is no beneficent or malevolent intent in nature.
Life is a struggle against preventable and unpreventable evils. The cooperation of humankind is the only hope of the world.
There is no chance after death to “do our bit.”
We must do it now or never.
There is no divine guardian of truth, goodness, beauty, and liberty.
These are attributes of humankind. We must defend them or they will perish from the earth.
Copyright © 2008 American Atheists, Inc. All rights reserved.
Like it or not, atheism is indeed a belief system with the same trappings of close minded dogma taught by the religionists.
Whether or not you subscribe to this particular “sect’s” articles of belief is moot.
Atheism is a belief system. A doctrine. One founded on personal beliefs without so much as a shred of supporting evidence.
So says the facts.
So says the dictionary.
So says the organized atheists themselves.
CroMM,
That is some interesting info. Before you posted to this site we had a discussion on this topic (and I’m going to try to find it for you). I have always called myself an atheist because I don’t know a term for “it would be interesting to meet a deity, but I haven’t met one yet and even if I meet one I wouldn’t worship or obey it.” I didn’t realize the Murry organization had all those sets of beliefs, and I agree those are sets of beliefs. You are probably correct to say some atheists try to “convert” others into unbelief. I personally have not met those kinds of atheists, but I don’t think this is inherently implausible.
Where I do disagree with you is that atheism is automatically disrespectful of others who are believers. I don’t see why this would be any more true than saying people who believed in the god Thor or goddess Hera or in the multiple gods and goddesses of Hinduism are being disrespectful by not believing in the christian god. Someone is being disrespectful if they demand everyone must be an atheist just as a believer is disrespectful when they demand everyone must be a believer in a diety in one form or another.
CroMM,
Here is one link. I found it under atheism in the search on this site.
://jonathanturley.org/2008/07/06/researcher-links-high-intelligence-with-atheism/#more-2305
Also, like the religionists, you immediately catagorize anyone challenging your belief system as being of the “enemy camp”.
Gyges said..
Also, I would like an example of what facts that I’m (in case people hadn’t guessed yet, I’m an Atheist) predisposed to shut out? I can give you examples of what facts (which are mainly just theories with lots of data to back them up) fundamentalists are willing to shut out:
Sorry to disappoint you Gyges, but I am not a “fundamentalist Christian” so why are you presenting straw arguments I never made?
These are arguments held by a specific group of fundamentalist Christians, of which I am not a member of. In fact, I am not a member of anything, unless you want to include my Triple AAA membership.
Its easy to argue such nonsense, so you automatically place that argument at my feet, as if I am to defend a specific sect of Christianity to which I neither subscribe nor endorse.
Most Christians however do fall under the idea of creationist theory, like the Catholics for instance, who long since have accepted that the method and manner of creation is a matter best left to science, and not religion.
Classifying me as such of course by presenting counter arguments based on strawmen I never put forth, is to be expected. It’s the bastion of the theist, and the a-theist.
Its’ the only way they can make sense of their own belief systems.
Jonathon,
How do you think it would be taken if Muhammed or Buddha or Krishna were represented in a way that was not respected or accepted by the followers? That probably wouldn’t go over well. Why then is it no big deal to do this with a picture of Jesus. Last I heard, they were trying to get pictures of Jesus out of public view – even the Ten Commandments can’t stay. But it’s OK to display a picture of Jesus that mocks Christian beliefs?
I wish people would stop making up stories about Jesus and just get to know Him. If they could get over themselves and their pride long enough to pray a simple prayer in faith – they would realize the greatest love and the best friend you could ever ask for.
There are Christians who organize and create written guidelines for themselves and Christians who don’t. The same is true for atheists. You can be a Christian without following the rules and guidelines set by a variety of Christian organizations. The same is true for atheists.
I’m an agnostic myself, in that I believe that it’s impossible to know if there’s a God or Gods. And while I profoundly disrespect fundamentalism, and to a lesser degree, the belief in an omniscient, omnipotent God, I don’t disrespect an individual who chooses to believe in God or Gods.
CroMM,
I think we’re talking about different things here. You’re talking about atheist organizations. I’m talking about atheists as people. While you have a valid point about these organizations being antagonistic and having a belief system (look at me being open to facts that go against my preconceived notions), they DON’T speak for all atheists. In fact I know some hard core militant atheists (to the point where they don’t celebrate Christmas), they don’t even belong to one of those organizations. The organizations can say that they represent all atheists, but it doesn’t make it true. By your theory all African Americans agree with the NAACP, and everyone that writes a song thinks that every thing ASCAP lobbies for is dead on. Unless you claim that all Jewish people hold the same views as the ADL, or that Focus on the Family speaks for all Christians, you need to admit to a double standard.
I’m not playing word games. You said that atheism was “Formed to dismiss and refute.” Lets just Set aside the argument about atheism being formed or not. My argument wasn’t that atheist don’t believe “that there is no god.” My argument was that nothing about believing that that there is no god says we have to dismiss the belief in a god, or refute it. Most atheists, like most Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and Wiccans, are content to let other people be “wrong” unless it directly affects them.
Putting aside our difference of opinion about what I do or don’t believe, what does that have to do with this paticular issue? Even if you’re right and I secretly harbor these feelings of ill will toward everyone who believes in a god of some form, does that mean I don’t have the right to Free Speech?
Jill said…
I personally have not met those kinds of atheists, but I don’t think this is inherently implausible
Well since they are the largest organized Atheist sect in the country, your not having “met” them takes a back seat to their existence.
Not to mention a US Supreme Court case which recorded an offical list of beliefs produced by an atheist group bringing suit against the public schools.
Also, I might also point out that I produced not one, but FIVE major dictionary definitions defining atheism as a “BELIEF SYSTEM”, including Websters, and Princetons “Wordnet”, so while you may have not met this particular sect of atheism, you hopefully have met the dictionary at one time or another.
How do you think it would be taken if Muhammed or Buddha or Krishna were represented in a way that was not respected or accepted by the followers?
I think one of the coolest things about America and our Constitution is that people are expected to be able to deal with ideas and concepts they find disrespectful, without requiring government protection from these ideas. It implies that we are adults, emotionally strong and mature enough to handle bad words and insulting ideas.
Gyges
I think we’re talking about different things here. You’re talking about atheist organizations. I’m talking about atheists as people
See?
There it is. The invariable “strains at logic” trying to find a way to correlate reality with your own beliefs.
Organizations of atheists, last time I checked, were made up by “people”. Atheist people.
And as I accurately predicted above, your attempts to produce “your personal beliefs” to dismiss the largest groups of atheists, offical belief systems recorded by the US Supreme Court and not one but FIVE mainstream dictionarys, confirms your own belief system and how it warps your ability to interpret reality.
And like I said, religionists do the same thing when presented with facts that do not meet with their own belief systems.
They invariably say “nuh uh”, thats not what I believe. Or “I dont’ care what the dictionary says, I know what I know”.
These statements, and all akin to them, are the bastions of self delusion brought on by belief systems.
Atheism is a belief system. Regardless of your “personal beliefs”.
CroMM,
You’re the one who brought Fundamentalists up. I was challenging your comparison, not saying you’re one. If I had wanted to call you a Fundamentalist, I would have put the words “like you” somewhere in that sentence. But again, you’re right I’m the one that makes assumptions about people because they disagree with me.
Also, I just want you to remember, true atheists would never put cream in their oats.
Like it or not, atheism is indeed a belief system with the same trappings of close minded dogma taught by the religionists.
I think it has some of the same trappings, but not all. There is nothing inherent in the beliefs expressed by the American Atheists that suggests non-Atheists should or will be punished for their beliefs.
See the fact is, A-THEISTS, are not much different at the end of the day, than the THEISTS.
One is the anti-thesis of the other and both profess their own unfounded beliefs, as fact, and dismiss any realities that do not coincide with their doctrines.
Which is why I have little time for either.
LJM said…
I think it has some of the same trappings, but not all. There is nothing inherent in the beliefs expressed by the American Atheists that suggests non-Atheists should or will be punished for their beliefs.
That they have “differening” beliefs is not in question, nor did I suggest otherwise.
The “trappings” I made it clear I was referring to are the trappings of close minded doctrines based not in reality, but personal beliefs.
That they posses DIFFERENT beliefs, was never in doubt.
Gyges
You’re the one who brought Fundamentalists up. I was challenging your comparison, not saying you’re one.
I was condemning fundamentalism, and not comparing atheism with fundamentalism in particular.
So debating their doctrines, doctrines which I have already dismissed in this and other threads, seems to be a red herring.
Why you’d argue with me something that I never professed, is thus in doubt.
I can say however, that everytime I challenge atheism in a blog, the same responses come back.
Like clockwork.
If I ever did start a church, it’s ornament would be a question mark, and it’s priests would wear Frank Gorshin’s old body suit from the Batman series.
We wouldn’t have very many answers, but we sure would have some damn good questions.
CroMM,
You left out an important part of what I was trying to say. It really does change the meaning. Here is my full quote.
“You are probably correct to say some atheists try to “convert” others into unbelief. I personally have not met those kinds of atheists, but I don’t think this is inherently implausible.”
No Jill, I just drilled down to the meat of it.
You say you “haven’t met those kinds of atheists”, which implies to anyone with an IQ higher than a blackjack hand, that they are a rarity.
It’s like Hilary Clinton saying “I don’t have any personal information to conclude Obama is a Muslim”.
It’s a crafted sentence, designed to diminish the fact at hand.
The fact that atheists have beliefs is not a rarity, your meeting them or not is thus moot.
Atheism is a belief system. Thats the fact.
And so far, no one here has admitted, or refuted that fact. Because it’s a hard fact for the atheist to admit.
CroMM,
You seem to want to rant at us about Atheism. I want to have a conservation that’s a give and take of ideas. I admit you’re right about the atheist organizations, and have elaborated on arguments that you’ve disagreed with. You’ve dismissed anything I’ve had to say with an attitude of “of course you say that you’re one of THEM.” I have made no attacks on your beliefs (I knew from the get go you weren’t a Fundi, your earlier comments on the history of the Gospels gave you away. I don’t really care what you believe, I’d have had this argument with an Atheist). You tell me that due to the nature of what I believe I’m closed minded and deluded.
You have to ask yourself, which one of us comes across as the one who feels the need to dismiss and refute others beliefs.
I don’t think Jill was saying she hadn’t met atheists with beliefs, but rather that she hadn’t met atheists who try to convert others to atheism.
And as for “changing meanings” Jill, your last post was one big strawman.
Here.
Jill said…
“You are probably correct to say some atheists try to “convert” others into unbelief.
I never once used the word “convert”, nor even implied anything about atheists “converting” others to their “unbelief” (which is a form of belief).
Never. Never said it. Not once.
Yet here, you put the word “convert” in quotes, attribute it to me, as if I said it, and then accuse me of ‘changing’ your meaning.
I didn’t. Thats a strawman and a fabrication.
I quoted you warmly and accurately.
You in turn invented a quote, and attributed it to me.
I don’t usually include quotes in my posts (I figure it would do people good to read the idea in context), but I think in this case
Res ipsa loquitur.
CroMM
“Both atheism and most fundamental religions share one thing in common. A predisposition to shut out facts, logic or evidence, in light of a pre-supposed set of beliefs, that may or may not be founded in reality. Atheism is as closed minded a belief system as is most fundamental theology, and therefore should be taken, parden the pun, “with a grain of salt”.”
Me
“You’re the one who brought Fundamentalists up. I was challenging your comparison, not saying you’re one.”
CroMM,
“I was condemning fundamentalism, and not comparing atheism with fundamentalism in particular.
So debating their doctrines, doctrines which I have already dismissed in this and other threads, seems to be a red herring.
Why you’d argue with me something that I never professed, is thus in doubt.”
LJM
I don’t think Jill was saying she hadn’t met atheists with beliefs, but rather that she hadn’t met atheists who try to convert others to atheism.
I know what Jill was saying LJ. I read it. It was a strawman because I never said ONE WORD about atheists “converting” people to atheism.
My entire premise has been the same since I started this discussion, that is, that A-theism, like Theism, is a BELIEF SYSTEM.
Which it is.
And no one so far has said anything that refutes that fact. Although some of them are having a difficult time coming to grips with that reality.
Probably be easier for them if I wasn’t such a dick about it, lol.
“I think one of the coolest things about America and our Constitution is that people are expected to be able to deal with ideas and concepts they find disrespectful, without requiring government protection from these ideas. It implies that we are adults, emotionally strong and mature enough to handle bad words and insulting ideas”
OK LJM, So why is Jesus or Christianity the most popular target??? I don’t believe I’ve heard anything on the news about questionable pictures of Buddha.
I have a close relationship with Jesus – He is more than just someone I read about. Although He is much greater than I and does not need me to defend Him, I will indeed speak up on His behalf.
If someone said or implied something disrespectful or untrue about a dear loved one, wouldn’t you want to defend?
By the way, I apologize for saying that people who don’t believe in Jesus are prideful and need to get over themselves. That was disrespectful on my part.
Observe as Gyges still strains with his red herrings and strawdogs. Observe.
CroMM
“Both atheism and most fundamental religions share one thing in common.
“You’re the one who brought Fundamentalists up. I was
Note that Gyges proceeded to debate “CREATIONIST THEORY” yet what “I” said, was a much broader, general terminology, “FUNDAMENTAL RELIGIONS”.
Yet he drew on this to go into a debate on the ridiculousness of the 6000 year creation period, something I never contested.
It was a general term gyges. FUNDAMENTAL RELGIONs, which I could easily have just said “RELIGIONS”. There was no underlying discussion on creationism suggested or intended.
That was your RED HERRING.
CroMM,
LJM has the meaning of what I said correct. I didn’t have any secret or other meaning. I feel you are quite angry with many of us who have actually agreed with you in many respects. I am going to bow out of any more postings with you on this issue as I feel I cannot bridge the gap. This is not said with meaness.
Once again, let me REITERATE my position, so no red herrings sour the flavor.
ATHEISM is a “BELIEF SYSTEM”, just like the religions it exists to dismiss.
There is little difference between the two, save one group likes to wear funny hats.
Where are these atheists harassing or mocking Christians? The quote from Mark is no more unbelievable than hundreds of other passages of other gospels, that the “panties-in-a-wod” Christians would think are positively true, according to their interpretation of their bible. A liberal interpretation of the life-style of Jesus could easily claim JC was gay. And so what! Does that make him a bad guy? Only if your interpretation of the thousands of years old scriptures leads you to that negative conclusion. This type of insight will provoke the more progressive Christian to think seriously about the issue. The others? There’s no hope for them anyway. As a transplanted Ohioan, living in Alabama for many years, I commend these LCCC students for taking a provocative debate topic to the next level. I would add that these students would be run out of town on a rail if they attempted this stunt in the heart of Dixie.
Jill
I feel you are quite angry with many of us who have actually agreed with you in many respects
Another red herring.
Please don’t fall back on the tired blogger strawman of confusing CLARITY with being “angry”.
I am not angry, in fact, I’m having a good time.
I enjoy serious debate, and all of you have been respectful and pleasant to debate with.
In fact, Gyges is probably the most benevolant atheist I have ever debated on the topic.
Ron said…
A liberal interpretation of the life-style of Jesus could easily claim JC was gay.
That would be an extremely “liberal” interpretation, as I pointed out in my first few comments.
So liberal in fact, that it would require throwing out the canon, the gnostics, the apocrypha, and our knowledge of the Law of Moses.
Jesus was not “gay”. He may have been a snappy dresser, and unusally friendly, but he was married to a woman, most likely had kids, and did all the things a typical Rabbi of the time did.
CroMM,
Well I’m done too. By sticking to your guns and dismissing all arguments that go against your preconceived notion of how Atheists dismiss all arguments that go against their preconceived notions you’ve gotten me to stop arguing with you. You probably think you’ve won. Congrats.
Everyone else,
Sorry for getting involved in another pointless debate, at least this time I had to good sense to leave before it got nasty.
The Lawyers,
Could you argue that this picture falls under the category of parody of a public figure (like in Hustler Magazine V Falwell)?
GetReal,
I think Jesus is the most popular target for a few reasons. Christianity is the most popular religion in the world and so many, many more people have had experiences with it, both good and bad. There are, unfortunately, a lot of “Christians” in the world who are much less humble than you. They judge and condemn and even strive to limit the positive experiences of others based on their interpretation of Scripture. Combine that with the fact that we live in a country where people are used to expressing themselves with less fear of government intervention, and you get lots of folks who say crazy, even obnoxious things about other people’s faith (or lack thereof). I don’t think it’s great that people say things like that, but I do think it’s great that they have the freedom to do so.
And I think you absolutely, positively should speak up when you feel someone has disrespected your beliefs or misunderstood the Gospels. That’s what it’s all about.
Gyges
Well I’m done too. By sticking to your guns and dismissing all arguments that go against your preconceived notion of how Atheists dismiss all arguments that go against their preconceived notions you’ve gotten me to stop arguing with you. You probably think you’ve won. Congrats
What “arguments”?
You haven’t made any yet, other than trying to sidetrack my position into a debate on creationism.
What arguments have you made?
Your first statements, as atheism not being a belief, I produced ample evidence to refute.
I produced offical Dictionary defintions from not one, but FIVE dictionarys. I produced “Articles of Belief” from the largest Atheist group in the United States, I even produced a US Supreme Court case where a list of atheist beliefs is recorded permanently in the court records.
Is this how you act when being proven wrong?
To get mad, insult the other blogger as being “pointless” and stomp of implying some kind of undemonstrated superiority?
You started out by saying ;
There is no suggested course of action like in organized religion, no system of morals, no basic tenet.
I proved this false.
In fact, I blew it out of the water, proving atheism is indeed a “System of Beliefs”, much like the religions it seeks to discredit.
I also disproved this original statement of yours;
There was no “Formation” of Atheism, just various people being willing to say “I don’t believe in a god.” As a side note you’ll note, nothing about that says that we need to refute others belief in a god.
I demonstrated irrefutably that A-THEISTS, like THEISTS, do indeed “form”, and do indeed “REFUTE GOD”.
I proved this repeatedly.
And instead of admitting it, you sulk off, muttering about how “pointless” a debate with me is on the topic?
No doubt it is pointless for you, as you can neither win the debate, nor admit when you’ve lost.
By the way Gyge, you didn’t need to tell me you were an atheist. You tipped your hand there when you tried to sell the tired old atheist dogma that a “dis-belief a god exists” is somehow different than a “belief that a god does not exist”.
This is a common dogma pushed by atheists that strains logic and actually reeks of the spiritual, (something mystical about non belief that is not possessed by belief in the opposite), when actually it’s simply a misuse of the English language.
It’s one atheists have written extensively on, and many base their entire faith in their “disbelief” on to try and distinguish themselves from the Theists.
Of course, anyone with a literacy level higher than grade school understands that there is no difference if I say “I don’t believe a god exists” or “I believe god doesn’t exist”.
It’s the same thing.
Just like if I say “I believe you are incorrect” , or say “I dis-believe you are correct”.
There is no difference. Except to those who’s “beliefs” supercede reality, or literacy.
CroMM,
It was pointless because we were arguing different things. I was arguing that the comparison to organized religions is only valid only to a certain point because it doesn’t a single source, or group of tenets, or scriptures to refer to for moral guidance. You were arguing that since there are atheist groups out there with their own definition of atheism it was an system of beliefs. It became clear that you’d had YOUR debate before, so read into my posts what you expected me to say, and answered accordingly. There was some other side stuff going on (by the way, I still don’t understand why you’re hung up on the belief\disbelief thing, I said you were right), but that’s the gist of it.
I found some of what you had to say interesting, but this isn’t the forum for a religious debate. Religious debates tend to get ugly, even when the people starting them are relatively polite. So since you know how this argument ends, and I don’t want a track mud all through Prof. Turley’s newly cleaned living-room, I’m done. I only post this because I figure it’s rude of me just to “walk away” from a conversation with no explanation. I may be a Godless commie with monkeys for cousins, but I’m a polite Godless Commie with monkeys for cousins.
Gyges
It was pointless because we were arguing different things. I was arguing that the comparison to organized religions is only valid only to a certain point because it doesn’t a single source, or group of tenets, or scriptures to refer to for moral guidance
Yea, and I proved that was wrong, in that;
A. Neither does religion (the thousands of various religions use a wide variety of sources, tenent, scriptures, etc for moral guidance)
B. Like religion, Atheism does form into groups, have tenets, beliefs, and one common tenet, for moral guidance.
So perhaps you mean it was pointless for you to try debate a position that was not founded in reality?
Gyges said.
It became clear that you’d had YOUR debate before, so read into my posts what you expected me to say, and answered accordingly
No. I’ve “debated” the topic before, and heard from all sides.
And invariably the atheist side produces the same tired, logicless arguments that you tried to sell today.
As for reading “into”, I read nothing but what you said.
I quoted you warmly and accurately and I responded to your specific claims.
And I’ll be happy to do it again.
Here’s what you said.
Gyges
1, August 25, 2008 at 4:16 pm
CroMM,
Your comparison between Atheism and organized religions falls short on a few levels: There’s no central figure in Atheism, you don’t have to accept the teachings of _____ to be an Atheist. Most Atheists I know weren’t “converted” or “raised in the faith,” they came to the realization on their own that they didn’t believe in a god. There is no suggested course of action like in organized religion, no system of morals, no basic tenet.
Sorry Gyge, this response is in some cases vague and applies as easily to religion as it does athesim, and the rest is patently false.
Let’s take your summary last statement “no basic tenet”.
This is just as false as it could be.
Of COURSE atheism has a common tenet.
Of course it does. I demonstrated that time and time again.
A “tenet” is by definition, a principle, dogma or doctrine that a group believes or maintains.
The one common tenet of atheism, is that god or gods do not exist.
Period.
There is no gray area there. I demonstrated that.
Hell I showed you not one, but FIVE dictionaries, included Websters and Princetons Wordnet, that clearly define athesim as a “Doctrine or Belief” that there is no god.
Yet your founding argument, claimed otherwise.
And I proved that. There’s no ambiguity here.
You made claims about atheism that were patently false. Your red herrings to the opposite notwithstanding. I proved your statement was false, and instead of admitting that, you’re playing some sort of “disinterested 3rd party” superiority card now, instead of owning up to being proven wrong.
You say atheism does not have a common tenet.
But the facts say. and prove, that it does.
Gyges says
There is no suggested course of action like in organized religion, no system of morals, no basic tenet.
But the facts say;
a·the·ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm]
–noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
Random House Unabridged Dictionary
Hence, a common tenet.
You rest my case.
Cro-man
You’re in absolutely no position to define atheism for me or anyone else. That a group of people call themselves an atheists’ organization is one thing. But for you to then presume it speaks for the vast majority of atheists who specically reject such organizations associated with a belief system demonstrates your inability to think beyond the one demensional confines of your religious indoctrination.
Since you have no clue of which you speak, I humbly request you demonstrate that fact no more.
CroMM,
You have me perplexed. Here i was enjoying your rendition of the real Jesus, with which I happen to agree. In the midst of it you become obsessed in a diatribe with Gyges and Jill about atheism as a belief system and I also somewhat agree with you there.
However, where we part company is in your insistence that ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and more lately Dawkins. I do think many atheists simply don’t believe in the God concept and could care less what others think, as long as it doesn’t impinge on them. O’Hare I admired, at least in her fight to take religion out of schools. Dawkins strikes me as a pedantic jerk, famous for The Selfish Gene, which was a biological attempt to emulate B.F.Skinner mechanization of humanity. I personally find aggressive atheists as tiring as aggressive fundamentalists.
That being said I have had many dialogs on religion with both Jill and Gyges in the past few months. I have found neither to be either dogmatic, affronting, nor partisans of a “straw man debating style.”
They are lucid, intelligent and fun in my experience. This despite the fact that I have characterized myself as a Deist Jew.
Now please understand, I am profoundly uninterested in proselytizing my spiritual beliefs and there is no organization that speaks for me.
In fact paraphrasing Groucho: I wouldn’t want to be a member of any organization that would have me. Do I have a belief system, you’re damned right I do. However, it is unique to me. In that sense I am quite willing to believe that Gyges and Jill have belief systems unique to them. I would venture to think that your belief system is likewise iconoclastic.
Since I do agree with much of what you state, perhaps you might listen to me on this point. While you no doubt take joy in debate and do it with great skill, in this debate you veered into the personal and in doing so diminished the thrust of your arguments.
I’m sorry RC Cambell. I was not “defining” atheism for you.
The dictionary was.
Perhaps you think I’m the dictionary?
Michael Spindell
However, where we part company is in your insistence that ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and more lately Dawkins.
Another straw argument.
I never said that “ALL” atheists repredsent the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins. I never even used those words.
I referenced http://www.ATHEIST.org, which encompasses the largest group of organized atheism in the US. I referenced a US Supreme Court case where a group of atheists sued the public school system and pronounced their “beliefs” to the world.
I referenced the dictionary as demonstrating the common basic “tenet” of atheism, that is, “the belief that there is no god”.
And not one, but FIVE Dictionarys.
So please control your straw horses, lol, when coming at me with critique. I never said what you claimed I said, thus that is a strawman.
Cromm,
There you go again.
Rcampbell,
You too.
The shame is that I’ve read a lot of stuff from you guys and I’m sure you both are smart enough to disagree without sarcasm. Although, truth be told, I’ve been guilty of it too.
But feel free, either of you, to produce the branch or sect of atheism, that does believe in god, and thereby refute the proof I’ve provided here this evening on the “basic tenet” of atheism.
Until then, my position stands unchallenged.
Atheism IS a belief that a god or gods do not exist.
And THAT is their basic tenet.
Their “doctrine”.
LJM:
“You can be a Christian without following the rules and guidelines set by a variety of Christian organizations. The same is true for atheists.”
************
I find this a perplexing statement. How can one be a member of a belief system and not adhere to all or most of its tenets. It’s like saying I am an agnostic but I believe in deity that sent his Son on a suicide mission to Earth and founded a religion but I am still an agnostic. Words are not infinitely malleable. They must mean something and this mushy brand of thinking gives credence to those who are Christian in name only, not wanting to burden themselves with teachings with which they, nor any other rational person, would agree.
Michael Spindell
Cromm,
There you go again
There I go again what?
The inability to formulate ones argument into words usually is an indicator of a flawed argument.
If you have something specific to refute, then refute it.
But just making random general “nuh uh’s” doesn’t cut it.
You have to… you know…. “say something”, if you want to demonstrate something is wrong.
Michael Spindell
The shame is that I’ve read a lot of stuff from you guys and I’m sure you both are smart enough to disagree without sarcasm
Aww come on Mikey. You don’t really have such sensitive feelings that a little ribbing hurts you so much?
I thought you guys were like.. “lawyers” and legal scholars and students and such.
I’ve never seen such a sensitive bunch of legal afficianado’s, particularly ones who are so opposed (or afraid) of a little open debate.
Cromm,
“Sraw Man” debating is ignoring someone’s point and picking out an argument that wasn’t being made. I too never said that you said ” “ALL” atheists repredsent(sis) the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins.” My point was that you were characterizing particular people with representing the belief systems of organized Atheism. I used O’Hare and Dawkins as examples of aggressive, prosylytising atheists, not as leaders of some Atheist cult. You certainly understood ttat, you’re smart enough, but you chose to ignore it because you’re having too much fun “debating” all comers tonight. we’re all entitled to our little pleasures, even at the risk of becoming pompous bores. Good night and maybe you should cut down on the coffee.
mespo727272
I find this a perplexing statement. How can one be a member of a belief system and not adhere to all or most of its tenets. It’s like saying I am an agnostic but I believe in deity that sent his Son on a suicide mission to Earth and founded a religion but I am still an agnostic.
Words are not infinitely malleable.
Amen.
ooops, I mean,… correct-a-mundo.
Don’t tell me, Bartleby is back…
And it’s ‘Cro-Magnon’ – the informal word once used by scientists to refer to the people who were living alongside Neanderthals at the end of the last ice age (ca. 35,000-10,000 years ago).
Michael Spindell
I too never said that you said ” “ALL” atheists repredsent(sis) the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins.”
Really? Sure you don’t want to retract that?
—
Michael Spindell
1, August 25, 2008 at 7:32 pm
CroMM,
However, where we part company is in your insistence that ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and more lately Dawkins.
——–
Here, one more time.
You say now;
I too never said that you said ” “ALL” atheists repredsent(sis) the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins.”
….and here’s what you really said.
However, where we part company is in your insistence that ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and more lately Dawkins.
So you claim “Michael”, I too never said that you said ” “ALL” atheists repredsent(sis) the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins.”
But here we see you saying just that;
where we part company is in your insistence that ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and more lately Dawkins
So you’re now defending a straw argument, with a “lie”?
That’s your response?
This is pretty typical of debates with atheists.
They invariably resort to strawmen, red herrings, diversions, and ultimately, lies.
You lied Michael. You DID say I said that.
Which I didn’t.
Then, when caught on it, you lied, claiming you did’nt.
Which shows that you “A-THEISTS” aren’t much better than the “THEISTS”, in defending your untenable positions.
Well don’t worry guys.
I am sure Patty or someone will post some nice lengthy diatribes and toss out some personal insults to distract from your embarrassment here this evening.
And fortunately for you, it usually works.
Patty,
So am I just particularly slow in figuring that out? I blame it on being distracted trying to figure out how to cook my fresh caught cut-throat trout for dinner (I decided on Welsh Style).
Mike,
Thank you for the kind words.
The Lawyers,
I was serious about my earlier question. For the sake of argument could this sort of representation of Christ (or any religious figure) be considered parody of a public figure? I know that it’s not all that relevant to this issue, and I remember reading here that you can’t sue someone for libel or slander of the dead, but as a thought experiment, would that argument hold water?
Ahh that’s it Gyges. Turn to distraction, talk about me in the third person, and dismiss he who just cleaned your clock without actually saying anything.
It’s funny to watch you however apologize for “debating” in a “BLOG” that supposedly is for legal fans and professionals.
It appears I came for hardball, or at least a little softball, and all I found was T-Ball.
Fact. Atheism is a “Belief System”.
Of course, if I had started out by saying something so untenable as “There is no suggested course of action like in organized religion, no system of morals, no basic tenet. , and then had someone actually have to read me the dictionary to demonstrate the “basic tenet” of atheism, then I’d want to distract from it too.
I’d be quite embarrassed.
—
atheism
noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University
—-
As I said, you rested my case.
Bartlebee,
I am certain it is you. You have a lot to offer. Please let’s all work together to make this a good experience for everyone on the blog. I want to hear what you have to say. I did and do hate the personal attacks by you and others against you. It made the blog ugly and hateful. I don’t want things to deteriorate like last time. We should all pull together as best as possible. No one has to pretend to like anyone, but being civil towards one another is a reasonable request so let’s just aim for that.
Jill
Jill, thanks, but the names “Cro Magnum Man”.
CRoMM for short, as I have thus been dubbed.
Not “Cro Magnon” as patty suggested, and not anything else.
I likewise would like to hear whatever you have to say. You’re a nice girl with a keen mind and it’s a pleasure to debate with you.
As for being civil, I am certainly being so I think. That I used sarcasm to make a point should not be construed as meanness but merely what it is. A little fun to make a point.
I came to this blog because I assumed it would be a place for real debate by quick witted legal minds, not a chat room for a small click social club trying to always “play nice” with each other. I don’t use profanity in my comments nor do I just blindly attack someone.
I “debate”, and when I defeat my opponents position I expect my opponent to admit it, or produce data to show otherwise. Not walk off sulking, and mumbling subtle insults and vague generalities and seeking solice in the comfort of likeminded individuals while speaking ill of me in the 3rd person, which is what I’ve seen here tonite.
I mean come on. Isn’t this a place for debate? I didn’t start this one. Gyges presented a position claiming to counter mine. I defeated his position, clearly illuminated a fallacy of it, then recieved the “superior than thou” attitude for my trouble. I also defeated Michael Spindells attempts to refute me, and caught him in not only a completely fabricated strawman, but an out and out lie once I exposed his strawman.
These are not the actions of mature individuals who want to debate. Nor is crying about it when someone uses a little saracasm to make a point. After all, they did it too, like saying things like “stop drinking the coffee” or whatever it was Micheal said when trying to paint me as ignorant for pointing out what he actually said.
I will always be respectful to those who are respectful to me, but sarcasm to prove a point is not being disrespectful.
Lying to try and refute a fact, is.
Not at all, Gyges, perhaps I am just more observant in some matters.
I know I am envious of your day’s catch – here’s an easy one pan recipe for Trout Almondine, but I would just broil it well with olive oil, S&P. Maybe, on the side, a caper sauce made with butter, lemon, a little flour, fish stock or sauce (to taste), and some parsley.
http://www.recipezaar.com/45886
Bon Appetit!
Patty,
Thanks for the suggestion, but it’s a sin to do more with wild trout than to wrap them whole in Tinfoil with a little a bacon (or butter), some lemon juice and a couple slices of onion. Pair that with a Biere De Gaurde or a good wit beer and we’re talking some seriously good eating. Of course if they’re small enough you can give dip them in a little cornmeal batter and fry them up. And I generally keep my freezer stocked with a couple of good smoked trout for when we have company I really like.
That’s campfire style! I agree, if you just pull them out of the water, but it takes about an hour to cook’ em that way.
How big are they?
Sometime you’ll have to give me your recipe for eating crow.
It must be good since you obviously enjoy it so much.
See Jill?
Whenever cornered guys like Gyges don’t admit their mistakes, but instead turn to distractions, as I predicted they would.
And with help from his apparent friend patty here, seems to be well on his way to burying his embarrassment at being beaten in a debate.
What did I predict? Oh yea, some lengthy diatribe, to bury his embarrassment.
And there it is.
Fish stories. Random chatter designed to bury his clock cleaning.
In fact, I predicted this over 2 hours ago.
Cro Magnum Man
1, August 25, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Well don’t worry guys.
I am sure Patty or someone will post some nice lengthy diatribes and toss out some personal insults to distract from your embarrassment here this evening.
And fortunately for you, it usually works
And there you go. Fish recipes from Jack and Julia Child.
All references to homsoexuality aside, the theological problems with the Secret Mark are as follow:
1) If two people are not married and carry out sexual intimacy, they are committing adultery.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. – Matthew 5:27-28
2) According to Judaism and Jesus Himself, marriage can only be between a man and a woman.
“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” – Mark 10:6-9
3) Therefore, if Jesus engaged in sexual intimacy with said youth in Secret Mark, He would no longer be sinless.
And as I said, this is even before taking into account the Biblical prohibitions against homosexual acts.
I have a comprehensive exegesis at Bible Passages That Oppose Homosexuality – Including the Words of Jesus and God Himself
Personally, I would have to rule that such deragotary ads should be allowed under the principle of free speech.
However, that being the case, equal treatment MUST be given so that criticism of atheism, liberalism, communism, homosexuality, Islam, Obama, women – you name it – is also allowed.
There should be no double or triple standards – either everyone can be mocked and smeared, or no one can.
The ACLU’s bias on this matter is stark – posters featuring Jesus in controversial light are allowed, yet positive portrayals of Christianity are banned from public areas as ‘infringing on separation of church and state’.
American Civil Liberties Union Religious Bias
And don’t get me started on the wide berth given to Islam… I dare Activists for Atheism to feature Mohammed as a pedophile, if they’re so into intellectual criticism of religion.
Hah. See? Cowards.
Scott said…
I have a comprehensive exegesis at Bible Passages That Oppose Homosexuality – Including the Words of Jesus and God Himself
Scott, you have no “words of Jesus” about Homosexuality, nor have you produced any in the above passages.
The above passage from Mark 10 was in direct response to a question about “DIVORCE”, and had nothing to do with homosexuality, which is why it doesn’t say anything about homosexuality.
And your quote from Matthew is about Adultery, and in this case, a man lusting after a WOMAN, and says nothing about a man lusting after a man, or a woman lusting after a woman.
Sorry buddy, you seem to have memorized some verses of scripture but not the surrounding context of those verses, a true sign of a “evangelical”.
During his entire 3 year ministry, Jesus didn’t once reference homosexuality, or even allude to it.
Doesn’t mean he condoned it. Doesn’t mean he didn’t.
Problem is, no where in the canon does he mention it, so whatever his feelings on the subject he didn’t think enough of it to bother to offer any discourse on the subject.
I think this entire “atheism means…” thread is irrelevant. The point is that most thinking people are skeptics. That is to say they require proof before acceptance and not the other way ’round. To designate atheism as this attitude adds nothing to the central concept but merely distracts the reader from the central truth which is the basis of rational thought. To debate what an atheist is makes about as much sense as debating the number of angels on the head of a pin. It may be intellectually occupying but it advances the debate about the truth of religion not one bit. And isn’t that really the crux of the issue?
It’s the atheists who chose to debate what an atheist is. I merely pointed out that I find atheism about the same as I find religion.
Closed minded, dogmatic, often fanatical and without a tenable foundation.
Skepticism is a much broader word, and had no real place in the discussion, however I am all for skepticism.
Unfortunately atheism is much more than skepticism, and is a belief system all it’s own. One who’s members often mock the “Theists” proclaiming some sort of scientific superiority, which it does not possses.
I am all for skepticism, and open minded thinking. I am all for tolerating belief systems, including atheism. But I am also for exposing fallacies purported by both religions and atheism, as I think THAT is the only way we truly come “into the light” so to speak.
That “some atheists” are more tolerant than others is not in question, as is not that some Theists are more tolerant than others.
But both seek to discredit the others, regardless of the twisted logic contortions executed by followers on either side to demand otherwise.
Atheism is the belief their is no god. A belief that they cannot prove.
Theism is the belief that there is a god. A belief that cannot prove.
When either one can prove themselves right, they will by definition, prove the other wrong.
In the meantime, the jury is still out so to speak, and any professions by either side is just two arguing factions saying “nuh uh” to the other.
I have little time for either, but tolerance for both.
Atheists may by some definitions not belief in a supreme deity or any deity, but what would you call someone who didn’t believe in astrology or vodoo or the occult or even the Loch Ness Monster? Why is there a word for people like most of us who do not believe in things without sufficient evidence?
Oops make that “believe” not “belief” in line 1.
Mespo,
There is a word for those who do not believe in things without sufficent evidence….that word(s) is Republicans!
How about we correct the entire sentence?
mespo727272
Atheists may by some definitions not belief [believe]in a supreme deity or any deity
No.
By ALL definitions atheists do not believe in a supreme deity or any deity.
But feel free to produce the branch or sect of atheism that does believe in a god.
Course, then it wouldn’t be atheism.
By definition.
rafflaw
1, August 25, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Mespo,
There is a word for those who do not believe in things without sufficent evidence….that word(s) is Republicans!
Now THAT I “believe” in.
But I think you meant to say “believe in without sufficient evidence”, not “do not believe in”.. .right?
mespo727272
what would you call someone who didn’t believe in astrology or vodoo or the occult or even the Loch Ness Monster?
“Gifted”?
mespo727272
Why is there a word for people like most of us who do not believe in things without sufficient evidence?
Because you label yourself thus.
I don’t necessarily “believe” in God.
I don’t disbelieve either.
Why?
Because there isn’t sufficent data on the subject for me to make such a declaration of belief.
If you don’t like being called an atheist, don’t call yourself an atheist. I never called you one. Atheists become atheists because it is human nature to look for a “support group” that reinforces perceptions we have of ourselves.
Atheism fills a natural void in those who reject common religions, which push themselves on us like a tuesday night hooker at Logan Circle. So many people choose to label themselves thus. But with that label, comes a lot of connoations that I am not sure all who call themselves atheist, would ascribe to given the light of certain arguments, such as I have made here this evening.
Rather than ascribing to atheism if you’re merely “skeptical” you might try inventing your own word. Like a “mespoist” or like me, a “dont’knowist”.
But if you choose to profess atheism, thats your call. Just know that atheism is a belief system, a doctrine, and like religion, cannot prove its founding tenet.
Do you suppose fat bloated woodtick keith olbermann believes in God, and if he does, what God does he believe in?
Well gee Russ, not sure. Why don’t you write and ask him?
But I do have a question.
If Olberman, who seems rather well proportioned for his size is a “fat bloated woodtick”, what exactly does that make the rotundish parasite calling itself Rush Limpbaugh?
Please be sure to include the words “sack of” in your definition.
CMM,
Thanks for catching my error.
I guess my point is that atheism is more properly defined as skepticism since its central tenet is that insufficient proof exists on this one topic. That is why I find the word anti-intellectual since is doesn’t categorize persons who disbelieve into any meaningful subset since they may disbelieve for many reasons. Hence my non-astrologer, non-vodooist etc., analogy. To hold that not enough proof exists for a proposition does not seem to be a affirmative position but rather a neutral state awaiting for a proponent to prove the matter.
While it is demonstrably true that the atheist cannot disprove the existence of the deity I see no evidence that he/she is trying to do so. The atheist merely says there is insufficient proof; I cannot prove otherwise; but this proposition is less likely to be true that its negation. Bertrand Russell’s “teapot in orbit” example addresses the point of the inequality of beliefs. That two mutually exclusive propositions cannot be proven to a certainty does not mean that both are equally plausible. See the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
mespo727272
1, August 25, 2008 at 11:59 pm
I guess my point is that atheism is more properly defined as skepticism since its central tenet is that insufficient proof exists on this one topic
Then your point is wrong.
Atheism is not more properly defined as “skepticism since its central tenet is that insufficient proof exists on this one topic”
Atheism is the “belief there is no god”.
It is not the belief that insufficient proof exists and that there “may be” a god.
Atheism is the belief that there is no god, as the dictionary points out, and as the founding tenet of atheism.
That’s why it’s called “A-THEISM”, and not “ALMOST-THEISM”. Because they don’t allow for the possiblity of a god.
Atheism is the belief that there is no god. Period.
What you believe does not define atheism. The English Language defines the word Atheism for those of us who speak English, and the authoritative reference for the English language, is the dictionary.
And the dictionary therefore does not take a back seat to your personal beliefs. The word means what it means.
As you so aptly stated earlier this evening,
Words are not infinitely malleable..
And that goes for atheism.
The dictionary defines it. The debate ends there.
a·the·ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm]
–noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
Random House Unabridged Dictionary
—
Atheism
1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary
—
atheism [ˈeiθiizəm] noun
the belief that there is no God
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary, © 2000-2006 K Dictionaries Ltd.
—
atheism
noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
mespo wrote:
“I think this entire “atheism means…” thread is irrelevant.”
****
Thank you, Counselor ( aka ‘buttbuddy’ )
Guess which way I am predicting this load, is headed?
- As in ‘zakimar’…
Bartlebee:
Here’s what I believe – you vowed not to post here anymore.
BTW, in all of your definitions ‘God’ is capitalized.
Also a reminder – JT personally requested you limit your machine-gun style posting routine, refrain from personal attacks, and to watch your language…
mespo727272:
How can one be a member of a belief system and not adhere to all or most of its tenets.
You’re assuming here that “Christianity” is a single belief system, instead of dozens (if not scores) of different ones. There are Christians who are gay and Christians who hate homosexuals. There are Christians who believe all good people go to heaven and there are Christians who believe that only Christians go to heaven. There are Christians who believe in evolution and Christians who believe true Christians must reject evolution. I could go on and on.
It’s like saying I am an agnostic but I believe in deity that sent his Son on a suicide mission to Earth and founded a religion but I am still an agnostic.
Not really. It’s more like saying what I said above.
Words are not infinitely malleable. They must mean something and this mushy brand of thinking gives credence to those who are Christian in name only, not wanting to burden themselves with teachings with which they, nor any other rational person, would agree.
It’s not about thinking, mushy or not. It’s about objective observations. There are sincere Christians who have differing personal and spiritual interpretations of what it means to be a Christian, who follow different sets of guidelines and rules. That’s a simple fact. The same is true for most, if not all, religions and belief systems.
Patty said..
Also a reminder – JT personally requested you limit your machine-gun style posting routine, refrain from personal attacks, and to watch your language…
The name is CroMM, and I have launched no personal attacks, merely engaged in open debate with others wishing to debate, and I have used absoltuely NO foul language whatsoever.
You however are now launching a personal attack on me, so I suggest if that’s “JTs request” that you yourself heed his request and cease launching personal attacks on me.
Patty said..
BTW, in all of your definitions ‘God’ is capitalized
So you think I am Websters Dictionary?
Or perhaps you think my body encompasses Princeton University’s “WordNet”?
Otherwise, they’re not “my defintions”.
They’re the dictionaries.
If you’re attempting to argue with the dictionary, I will enjoy seeing that.
atheism (ā’thē-ĭz’əm)
Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
[French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a–1 + theos, god.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition
Cro-Bartles:
I am impressed with your singlemindedness in worshiping before the great altar of the dictionary. You will probably note that the word “courage” is defined there as:
“1. the quality of mind or spirit that enables a person to face difficulty, danger, pain, etc., without fear; bravery.”
Many of us feel Hemingway said it better when he defined the term as “grace under pressure,” so you see there are many sources of definitional authority. You might even like this one for “atheism”:
^ Simon Blackburn, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy: “Atheism. Either the lack of belief in a god, or the belief that there is none.”
LJM:
“You’re assuming here that “Christianity” is a single belief system, instead of dozens (if not scores) of different ones. There are Christians who are gay and Christians who hate homosexuals. There are Christians who believe all good people go to heaven and there are Christians who believe that only Christians go to heaven. There are Christians who believe in evolution and Christians who believe true Christians must reject evolution. I could go on and on.”
*********
Assuming this to be true I must conclude that being called a “Christian” means absolutely nothing for as every freshman philosophy student knows that if a term means everything it truly means nothing.
mespo727272
1, August 26, 2008 at 2:04 am
Cro-Bartles:
I am impressed with your singlemindedness in worshiping before the great altar of the dictionary. You will probably note that the word “courage” is defined there as:
“1. the quality of mind or spirit that enables a person to face difficulty, danger, pain, etc., without fear; bravery.”
And as I stated earlier, we see the atheist, reduced to vain attempts at mere personal insults and mockery, without bothering to include any actual facts or data that refute what was said.
I will merely respond to your juvinile personal attack by drawing attention back to your most recent statement that was refuted.
Your most recent comment that was proven wrong, was as follows;
mespo727272
1, August 25, 2008 at 11:59 pm
I guess my point is that atheism is more properly defined as skepticism since its central tenet is that insufficient proof exists on this one topic
As we have seen, atheism is not “more properly defined as skepticism”.
We also see that to the atheist, the rules apply in debates only when they support his untenable positions. As here, where he mocks the English dictionary as an authoritarian reference for the English language.
Clearly to the Atheist, scientific reasoning only goes as far as it supports his belief system, as does it go with the Theist.
When the facts do not support your position, reference materials considered authoritarian become sources of mockery, much like the neocons do with science and global warming, or creationism.
I however have produced not one but FIVE dictionrary references, and you have merely produced your “opinion”, which goes against the laws of grammer; (THEISM = Belief in God, A-THEISM = the oppoisite of THEISM, hence A-THEISM by defintion means a belief in no god), and yet here I am, still having to explain to you simple grammar. It just goes to confirm my initial position, that A-THEISM is not much different than THEISM, in that they both ascribe with dogmatic zealotry to their own doctrines even in the face of proven fact.
mespo727272
1, August 26, 2008 at 2:14 am
Assuming this to be true I must conclude that being called a “Christian” means absolutely nothing for as every freshman philosophy student knows that if a term means everything it truly means nothing
Christianity refers to a “follower of Christ”.
As LJM so accurately pointed out, this can be anyone who considers themselves a follower of Christ.
There are no specific ordinances, tokens or covenants that are a pre-requisite other than professing to follow and or believe in Christ, to be deemed Christian.
Whether or not they are “good Christians”, is another story. Just like their are no specific pre-requisites necessary to call ones self atheist other than denying the existence of any sort of deity.
THEISTS = Belief there is a God or gods.
A-THEISTS = Belief there is no God or gods.
Everything else is up to the individual. But to call themselves one or the other, they must subscribe to the primary basic tenet.
The tenet Gyges said didn’t exist under Atheism. Which it does.
And in both cases, it’s a basic tenet, that neither belief system can prove.
Thus, both are ultimately untenable belief systems, relying on the believers ability to believe without evidence.
mespo727272:
Assuming this to be true I must conclude that being called a “Christian” means absolutely nothing for as every freshman philosophy student knows that if a term means everything it truly means nothing.
Well, it would be silly of you to conclude that since nowhere have I implied that the word “Christian” “means everything.” It has a very simple meaning, which, as I’ve been pointing out all along, allows it to be interpreted in a wide variety of ways.
If you’re going to throw around phrases like, “mushy thinking” and “freshman philosophy student,” you should be certain that your arguments don’t contain lots of the former so you don’t come off sounding like the latter.
Chris·tian
Pronunciation[kris-chuhn]
n.
1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.
Main Entry: 1Chris·tian
Pronunciation: \ˈkris-chən, ˈkrish-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin christianus, adjective & noun, from Greek christianos, from Christos
Date: 1526
1 a: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ
(2008)Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
Sooooo … ehem (clearing throat). How do you think the Jets are going to do with Favre in the saddle?
Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief.
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/defining.htm
There are many rancorous debates over the definition of atheism, with quite a few theists insisting that atheism should be defined in a very narrow sense: the denial of the existence of any gods. When theists simply assume that this is what atheism is, there can be a lot of miscommunication and misunderstanding in their discussions and debates with atheists.
Why do these errors occur? Why do some theists insist that the broader sense of atheism simply does not exist? Possibly some theists feel that since they are claiming the existence of their god, then anyone who does not agree with them must be claiming the exact opposite — a serious misunderstanding of not only basic logic but also how human beliefs operate.
A factor which many atheists will encounter is the fact that so many common dictionaries simply fail to provide a full and adequate definition of atheism. Prejudices and assumptions about atheists are quickly confirmed when someone picks up a small dictionary and reads that atheism is “wickedness” and “denial of God,” something often encountered.
Fortunately, larger and more comprehensive dictionaries provide more accurate explanations of what atheism is. The use of poor dictionaries can be addressed by pointing people to the fact that all of these superior sources indicate something different. If someone is interested in an honest conversation, then they will acknowledge that sources like the Oxford English Dictionary, among many others, are more informative and authoritative than their pocket paperback.
Unfortunately, not every person entering such discussions does so with intellectual honesty. Thus, another reason often seen for insisting that only the narrow sense of atheism is relevant is that it allows the theist to avoid shouldering the principal burden of proof. You see, if atheism is simply the absence of a belief in any gods, then the burden of proof lies solely with the theist. If the theist cannot demonstrate that their belief is reasonable and justified, then atheism is automatically credible and reasonable.
There is also a tendency among some theists to make the error of focusing only on the specific god in which they believe, failing to recognize the fact that atheists don’t focus on that god. Atheism has to involve all gods, not simply one god — and an atheist can often approach different gods in different ways, depending upon what is necessitated by the nature of the god in question.
Thus, when someone claims that a person is an atheist because they “deny the existence of God,” we can start to see some of the errors and misunderstandings that statement involves. First, the term “God” hasn’t been defined, so what the atheist thinks of it cannot be automatically assumed. The theist cannot simply assert that whatever they have in mind must also be something which the atheist has in mind. Second, it is not true that whatever this god turns out to be, the atheist must automatically deny it. This concept might turn out to be too incoherent to justify either belief or denial.
As a matter of fact, many exchanges between atheists and theists turn out to be frustrating and unsatisfactory because no one ever bothers to stop and explain what is meant by the key term “god.” Until that happens, no serious, productive, or rational discussion can take place. Unless we know what the theist means by “god,” we’ll never have any chance to judge if anything said in defense of belief is adequate. Only when we know what the theist means by “god” will we be able to seriously critique their concepts.
*****
(OED)definitions etc to follow…
http://atheism.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ/Ya&sdn=atheism&cdn=religion&tm=83&f=00&tt=14&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.infidels.org/news/atheism/sn-definitions.html
Oxford English Dictionary (OED), Second Edition
Here is how the OED defines “atheism”:
atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.
disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.
deny
1. To contradict or gainsay (anything stated or alleged); to declare to be untrue or untenable, or not what it is stated to be.
2. Logic. The opposite of affirm; to assert the contradictory of (a proposition).
3. To refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine or tenet); to reject as untrue or unfounded; the opposite of assert or maintain.
4. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge (a person or thing) as having a certain character or certain claims; to disown, disavow, repudiate, renounce.
Note that the OED definition covers the whole spectrum of atheist belief, from weak atheism (those who do not believe in or credit the existence of one or more gods) to strong atheism (those who assert the contrary position, that a god does not exist).
Here is the OED’s definition of “agnostic”:
agnostic A. sb. One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.
It is interesting to compare this to Huxley’s definition.
Webster’s 3rd New International Dictionary Unabridged
Here is Webster’s definition of atheism:
atheism n 1 a: disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity b: the doctrine that there is neither god nor any other deity–compare AGNOSTICISM 2: godlessness esp. in conduct
disbelief n: the act of disbelieving : mental refusal to accept (as a statement or proposition) as true
disbelieve vb vt : to hold not to be true or real : reject or withold belief in vi : to withold or reject belief
Note that again, both strong (1b) and weak (1a) atheism are included in the definition.
Atheist books
One might argue that the term “Jewish” should properly be defined by Jews, and that similarly the term “atheist” should be defined by atheists. So, here are a few quotes from popular atheist books about atheism.
It turns out that the word atheism means much less than I had thought. It is merely the lack of theism.
Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god–both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter.
[Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist, p. 99.
Freedom From Religion Foundation, 1992.]
The word “atheism,” however, has in this contention to be construed unusally. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of “atheist” in English is “someone who asserts there is no such being as God,” I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix “a” to be read in the same way in “atheist” as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as “amoral,” “atypical,” and “asymmetrical.” In this interpretation an atheist becomes: someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels “positive atheist” for the former and “negative atheist” for the latter.
[Antony G.N. Flew and Paul Edwards, God, Freedom, and Immortality p. 14.
Prometheus, 1984.]
If you look up “atheism” in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek “a” means “without” or “not” and “theos” means “god.” From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God.
[Michael Martin, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, p. 463.
Temple University Press, 1990.]
Martin goes on to cite sveral other well-known nontheists in history who used or implied this definition of “atheism,” including Baron d’Holbach (1770), Richard Carlile (1826), Charles Southwell (1842), Charles Bradlaugh (1876), and Anne Besant (1877).
The average theologian (there are exceptions, of course) uses “atheist” to mean a person who denies the existence of a God. Even an atheist would agree that some atheists (a small minority) would fit this definition. However, most atheists would stongly dispute the adequacy of this definition. Rather, they would hold that an atheist is a person without a belief in God. The distiniction is small but important. Denying something means that you have knowledge of what it is that you are being asked to affirm, but that you have rejected that particular concept. To be without a belief in God merely means that yhe term “god” has no importance, or possibly no meaning, to you. Belief in God is not a factor in your life. Surely this is quite different from denying the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is the lack of belief.
When we examine the components of the word “atheism,” we can see this distinction more clearly. The word is made up of “a-” and “-theism.” Theism, we will all agree, is a belief in a God or gods. The prefix “a-” can mean “not” (or “no”) or “without.” If it means “not,” then we have as an atheist someone who is not a theist (i.e., someone who does not have a belief in a God or gods). If it means “without,” then an atheist is someone without theism, or without a belief in God.
[Gordon Stein (Ed.), An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism, p. 3.
Prometheus, 1980.]
Oxford English Dictionary (OED), Second Edition
Here is how the OED defines “atheism”:
atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.
disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.
deny
1. To contradict or gainsay (anything stated or alleged); to declare to be untrue or untenable, or not what it is stated to be.
2. Logic. The opposite of affirm; to assert the contradictory of (a proposition).
3. To refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine or tenet); to reject as untrue or unfounded; the opposite of assert or maintain.
4. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge (a person or thing) as having a certain character or certain claims; to disown, disavow, repudiate, renounce.
Note that the OED definition covers the whole spectrum of atheist belief, from weak atheism (those who do not believe in or credit the existence of one or more gods) to strong atheism (those who assert the contrary position, that a god does not exist).
Here is the OED’s definition of “agnostic”:
agnostic A. sb. One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.
It is interesting to compare this to Huxley’s definition.
Webster’s 3rd New International Dictionary Unabridged
Here is Webster’s definition of atheism:
atheism n 1 a: disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity b: the doctrine that there is neither god nor any other deity–compare AGNOSTICISM 2: godlessness esp. in conduct
disbelief n: the act of disbelieving : mental refusal to accept (as a statement or proposition) as true
disbelieve vb vt : to hold not to be true or real : reject or withold belief in vi : to withold or reject belief
Note that again, both strong (1b) and weak (1a) atheism are included in the definition.
Atheist books
One might argue that the term “Jewish” should properly be defined by Jews, and that similarly the term “atheist” should be defined by atheists. So, here are a few quotes from popular atheist books about atheism.
It turns out that the word atheism means much less than I had thought. It is merely the lack of theism.
Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god–both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter.
[Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist, p. 99.
Freedom From Religion Foundation, 1992.]
The word “atheism,” however, has in this contention to be construed unusally. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of “atheist” in English is “someone who asserts there is no such being as God,” I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix “a” to be read in the same way in “atheist” as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as “amoral,” “atypical,” and “asymmetrical.” In this interpretation an atheist becomes: someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels “positive atheist” for the former and “negative atheist” for the latter.
[Antony G.N. Flew and Paul Edwards, God, Freedom, and Immortality p. 14.
Prometheus, 1984.]
If you look up “atheism” in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek “a” means “without” or “not” and “theos” means “god.” From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God.
[Michael Martin, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, p. 463.
Temple University Press, 1990.]
Martin goes on to cite sveral other well-known nontheists in history who used or implied this definition of “atheism,” including Baron d’Holbach (1770), Richard Carlile (1826), Charles Southwell (1842), Charles Bradlaugh (1876), and Anne Besant (1877).
The average theologian (there are exceptions, of course) uses “atheist” to mean a person who denies the existence of a God. Even an atheist would agree that some atheists (a small minority) would fit this definition. However, most atheists would stongly dispute the adequacy of this definition. Rather, they would hold that an atheist is a person without a belief in God. The distiniction is small but important. Denying something means that you have knowledge of what it is that you are being asked to affirm, but that you have rejected that particular concept. To be without a belief in God merely means that yhe term “god” has no importance, or possibly no meaning, to you. Belief in God is not a factor in your life. Surely this is quite different from denying the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is the lack of belief.
When we examine the components of the word “atheism,” we can see this distinction more clearly. The word is made up of “a-” and “-theism.” Theism, we will all agree, is a belief in a God or gods. The prefix “a-” can mean “not” (or “no”) or “without.” If it means “not,” then we have as an atheist someone who is not a theist (i.e., someone who does not have a belief in a God or gods). If it means “without,” then an atheist is someone without theism, or without a belief in God.
[Gordon Stein (Ed.), An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism, p. 3.
Prometheus, 1980.]
LJM:
“If you’re going to throw around phrases like, “mushy thinking” and “freshman philosophy student,” you should be certain that your arguments don’t contain lots of the former so you don’t come off sounding like the latter.”
***********
Well I’m in good company since it was Aristotle who first criticized thinkers like you who believe that words can mean an infinite number of things. For you there are no bounds to the definition because some people calling themselves Christians might or do believe it. If you can’t see the flawed thinking in this argument of yours I am afraid there is very little anyone can do to help you since you have rendered communication impossible.
Cro-Bartles:
“Your most recent comment that was proven wrong, …,”
********
There’s the Bartlebee we knew, declaring victory in contests he initiates. I thought you were a person of your word and when you left in such a huff I thought you meant what you said. Alas we now know that in addition to incredible peevishness, your principled pronouncements last about 30 days.
I believe it was Pascal’s Wager that said you may as well believe in God because if you do, and there is, you win. If you do and their isn’t, you’ve lost nothing. If you don’t, and their is, your screwed, or something like that anyway.
I don’t find it to far-fetched that something with far greater intellect and abilities designed all of this, and produced it… not in China, but somewhere probably in the Azores.
I do find it difficult to believe that a being with all of this power needed to send a guy down here to try to convince us we should believe he is the son of God, and that our only way to heaven is through him? As a former Christian and deacon at a Southern Baptist Church I am well aware of the teachings of Christ, and the Old Testament. I tend to believe if God had something to say, he’d say it himself… Like with an Earthquake or Flood…
But I also don’t see any benefit in insulting Christians by mocking their God… it only fans the flames of hatred and I hope that Christians can pass this test of avoiding the hate, and embracing these kids with nothing but love. If they can do that, then they will have a better understanding of what their lord prescribed to them.
Peace.
Barry Lauterwasser:
“But I also don’t see any benefit in insulting Christians by mocking their God… it only fans the flames of hatred and I hope that Christians can pass this test of avoiding the hate, and embracing these kids with nothing but love. If they can do that, then they will have a better understanding of what their lord prescribed to them.”
*************
Would you feel the same way if the erroneous belief system involved were the Branch Davidians or radical Muslims?
Should we accept and respect the opinion of those who are convinced Elvis is still alive?
Sometimes it takes some insults to get people thinking in different ways. Public scorn is a powerful force to make delusionists reconsider their position.
CMM,
You still there? I’m pretty late to this thread, but I read a lot of your earlier postings. I feel very strongly that I disagree with your position on atheists here. I disagree that atheism is an inherrent attack on other beliefs. I disagree that atheism is just as bad as fundamentalist anything. I disagree with your assertions that atheism’s beliefs (yes I do agree they are beliefs) are standing on shaky ground. I do not believe the tenets of atheism you posted above assume anything contrary to your own beliefs save one, which admittedly they all assume. The belief that there is no god. If you only took out the obvious statement that there is no god in each and replaced it with a less certain “If there is no god, then…” I think you wouldn’t disagree with those statements. If so, please explain to me which of those tenets is wrong given the presumption of no god?
If you don’t disagree that if there is no god then we are on our own. Then we are left with the one problem, God himself. And I am happy to discuss that topic as well, but it comes second to whether or not you disagree with the tenets assuming God doesn’t exist.
“This is pretty typical of debates with atheists.
They invariably resort to strawmen, red herrings, diversions, and ultimately, lies.
You lied Michael. You DID say I said that.
Which I didn’t.
Then, when caught on it, you lied, claiming you did’nt.
Which shows that you “A-THEISTS” aren’t much better than the “THEISTS”, in defending your untenable positions.”
I didn’t lie and I explained why I didn’t, but you chose to focus solely on your original point, without confronting my explanation. The literary equivalent of “Liar, liar, pants on fire.
Secondly, you prove that you only superficially read these comments, looking only for minutiae that you can pick apart and make you feel like you’re a good debater. I am a Jewish Deist and I did state that clearly in one of my comments. I am not a believer in atheism, which I also stated clearly.
However, you’re not interested in discussion, or exchange of ideas. Your only interest is in winning debates (you of course would be the only one to define a win) and attempting to prove how smart you are.
You are admittedly smart, but you are at the same time quite ignorant. I’m not interested in dictionary’s though, they are the last refuge of the pedant and the pretender. I define ignorant as being unable to grasp other points of view besides your own, or those few you agree with.
Finally, I am not a lawyer. I’m a Social worker, Psychotherapist and Directed Social Service Programs, before health forced me to retire.
Given that background I am certainly interested in how people view the world, I listen to others, read others content and generally try to learn through understanding other’s views, which may be different from my own. Debating to me is a silly endeavor, focussed more on the ego, than on edification. You on the other hand may be smart, but you seem to only take pleasure in tearing down others as a tribute to your intelligence. Sad and pathetic.
If jesus was gay, should it really matter, hes your god, what you going to do about it? hehe
CroMM,
I know I said I was done, but after a night of sleep, and a quick look in the dictionary, in the interest of intellectual honesty: I misused the word tenet. I should have used Doctrine. I was assuming certain connotations from tenet that didn’t exist. You are right to say that Atheism has a tenet, I apologize for my error.
I also am willing to admit (and have from the beginning) that there are organized groups of atheists, some of which have a list of tenets that “True” atheist believe (I eat my oats with cream, so am not a true atheist). I would hope that you’re intellectually honest enough to admit that no such group ever speaks for all the people it claims represents. I’m a composer and performing artist but ASCAP doesn’t represent me anymore then Atheist.org represents me.
You having proven that atheism shares some characteristics with organized religions does not prove that atheism shares all characteristics with organized religions. The point I originally made, and you claim to have is that your comparison of atheism with organized religion falls short because of certain key features that organized religions share that atheism lacks. Any other definitions you have given, arguments about belief\disbelief, accusations of that you may have made are simply, to borrow a turn of phrase, red herrings and straw-man arguments.
I won’t be drawn back into a debate with you, because I don’t think either one of us is going to convince the other. I try to only engage in discussions that are a give and take of ideas, not two sides ranting at each other. I once again apologize to you and to everyone for being drawn into it (not the debate in and of itself, but the type of debate) in the first place. I really am working on not getting into this sort of thing, but the flesh is weak.
Excuse me: “…claim to have proven false…”
Jill,
There’s an well known mechanism where humans perceive something that we expect to see. So basically it’s not my fault I can’t proof read I’m just hardwired that way. Of course you’ll probably claim that humanity can’t proof read because of nurture, not nature.
I without doubt do claim this! But I did hear Ritalin may help with it:) If you get a chance I’d like to hear about what type of music you compose. That is a wonderful skill.
Jill,
I never said I was a good composer, mainly I just rip off ideas from Mingus.
Patty C
1, August 26, 2008 at 6:18 am
Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief
As always, the atheist contorts and stretches the bounds of reason, logic, and of course the English Language, to try and find solice in shoring up their untenable belief system.
To do so, the atheist turns to books of philosophy and atheist publications to shore up their position.
To those of us of course not under the passion of their “belief system”, we understand that the “lack of belief” is the same as the “belief in the opposite”.
It’s not “mystical”.
It’s not a difficult concept.
It’s just plain english.
As in , I “disbelieve patty knows what she’s talking about”, or “I believe patty doesn’t know what she’s talking about”.
Same thing.
To anyone literate.
Mike Spindell
1, August 26, 2008 at 10:42 am
I didn’t lie and I explained why I didn’t, but you chose to focus solely on your original point, without confronting my explanation
No Michael, what I did was print your lie in bold letters for you to see, so you could see your own strawman you created, and then your LIE trying to cover it up.
Here.
I’ll do it again.
YOUR STRAWMAN INVENTING WORDS AND POSITIONS I NEVER SAID;
where we part company is in your insistence that ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and more lately Dawkins
YOUR LIE, TRYING TO COVER UP YOUR STRAWMAN;
I too never said that you said ” “ALL” atheists repredsent(sis) the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins.”
See Michael?
You can make all the post-lying explanations you want, but your words prove you out.
Your words show both your strawman, and your LIE.
Gyges
1, August 26, 2008 at 11:36 am
CroMM,
I know I said I was done, but after a night of sleep, and a quick look in the dictionary, in the interest of intellectual honesty: I misused the word tenet. I should have used Doctrine.
So your argument now is illiteracy, coupled with more illiteracy?
Your statement was wrong whether you used the word “tenet” or “Doctrine”.
Ok, thought you were done too but lets reexamine the statement you made that’s in question here.
Here’s your statement Gyge.
Gyges
1, August 25, 2008 at 4:16 pm
There is no suggested course of action like in organized religion, no system of morals, no basic tenet.
And now your new argument this morning… after a good nights sleep, and a peruse of your dictionary, compells you to reopen your position, substituting the word “doctrine” for “tenet”?
Ok, hate to have to do this but apparently we need the dictionary again. Sad but true.
Ok, here’s the definition of the word “TENET”, from the dictionary.
—
ten·et (těn’ĭt)
An opinion, doctrine, or principle held as being true by a person or especially by an organization
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
—
So now, your argument, is you want to subsitute the word “Tenet” which means “DOCTRINE” with the word “DOCTRINE” as if that somehow alters the inaccuracy of your earlier statement?
Did you not see the definition of the word “ATHEISM” from the dictionary’s last night?
I posted them repeatedly.
Here Gyge, I’ll post one or two again for you, so you can see that changing the word “TENET” to “DOCTRINE” in no way improves the innaccuracy of your statement.
—-
atheism
noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
—
a·the·ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm]
–noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
Random House Unabridged Dictionary
—
So you see Gyge, Atheism DOES have a basic “DOCTRINE” or “TENET”.
That doctrine?
That there is no god.
A-THEISTS of course, like the THEISTS, will make contorted strains of logic, IGNORE the DICTIONARY and rules of the English Language, and strain reason, and LITERACY, to it’s very bounds trying to prove their belief system, is somehow superior to other’s belief systems, in fact trying to assert it’s not even a belief system at all.
But some sort of mystical “dis-belief” that does not equal belief in the opposite.
I believe that does not constitute literacy.
I also disbelieve that constitutes literacy.
See Gyge? Same thing.
To the literate.
CroMM,
Forgive my ignorance but of course saying,” I disbelieve in a god.” is exactly the same as saying, “I believe god doesn’t exists.” So what?
What matters isn’t what you believe, but why you believe. It is not inherently the same to believe one thing or the other. For instance, “I believe the sky is blue.” and , “I disbelive the sky even exists.” Wow, both of those people must be crazy fanatics because they believe something equal but opposite, right? Of course not, so if you want to point fingers about straw arguments you might want to dig a little deeper into your own logic. It isn’t the belief you have, and it’s not even the fervor for which you state your belief that matters. It’s the content that matters. You haven’t approached the issue of plausibility yet.
Michael Spindell said..
I’m not interested in dictionary’s though, they are the last refuge of the pedant and the pretender
No Mike.
They’re the last refuge of the literate, when dealing with the illiterate.
Josh
1, August 26, 2008 at 1:58 pm
CroMM,
Forgive my ignorance but of course saying,” I disbelieve in a god.” is exactly the same as saying, “I believe god doesn’t exists.” So what?
So what? That’s what I say. So what?
It is not I who has been arguing in here that they are somehow “mystically different”.
Don’t just read my posts. Read Patty’s who just laid out a lengthy diatribe on how “disbelief” in something does not constitute belief in the opposite.
You understand that disbelief a god exists equals the same as believing god does not exist?
Great! One more convert to literacy.
Now if you could just convince your friends.
Josh said..
You haven’t approached the issue of plausibility yet
That’s because I can’t get past the issue of literacy yet.
When we can get the atheists to accept literacy, then we can move on to things like plausibility.
Take a close look at Patty’s post above. The one where she lays out in great detail a myriad of assorted facts mingled with atheist rhetoric.
Note how she is compelled to talk to me as if I were a THEIST. Implying that I follow some religious belief system. Even though I’ve made it clear time and time again, that I am neither a THEIST, nor an A-THEIST.
She does this because it is the only way the A-THEIST can shore up their crumbling foundations.
And when logic, and the English Language disagree with the A-THEIST, they turn invariably to lengthy diatribes about mystical powers they have injected into the word “disbelief” that sets them up and apart from others belief systems.
Of course, to the rest of us, those who are neither THEISTS nor A-THEISTS, we can see their dogmatic contortions as they strain the very bounds of logic trying to assert themselves into a loftier position than their counterparts, the THEISTS.
Invariably they will turn to the “but that’s not how I see it” defense, the same defense employed by most 3 year olds when referring to bath time.
But the fact is, A-THEISM is a DOCTRINE and a BELIEF. It is the doctrine and belief that there is no God or gods.
So says the word A-THEISM.
So says literacy.
So says logic.
So says the DICTIONARY.
And so says mespot727272
Words are not infinitely malleable.
mespo727272 1, August 25, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Ah, I see, however it was you who first equated disbelief with belief very early in the postings. I srtongly disagree, not in the literary sense, but in the proposed premise. I would agree given that both belief and disbelief were on equal footing, however I do not see that as the case. You yourself probably disbelieve many things base on lack of evidence. If so, as I suspect you wouldn’t argue, you accept that to some degree, lack of evidence for the existence of something is evidence (although inconclusive) that the thing does not exist.
Also, you state in an earlier post that, “Atheism is by definition an offensive belief system” implying that it is designed to dismiss religion entirely. But, that is only a consequence of the belief, not necissarily a deliberate effort to prevoke believers of other ideas. Others here would agree that some atheists have made it a mission to do exactly that, believing it better to inform and i suppose convert isn’t entirely inapprpriate. But thosee atheists are the minority, despite the stated goals of certain prominent atheist organizations. However, I still, even here decline to admit that even these atheist missionaries equate to fundamentalism.
Josh
1, August 26, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Ah, I see, however it was you who first equated disbelief with belief very early in the postings
No, I called atheism a belief system. It was the atheists and their apologists who tried to distinguish the two, which brought about my correcting them.
And either way so what?
What does that have to do with anything? Are you trying to now pin some sort of “blame” for what has been an illuminating debate on atheism and theism?
I have no problem owning up to my own comments and posts. Others in here seem to take mulitple responses before admitting what they actually said.
Fact. My ORIGINAL fact.
A-THEISM is a BELIEF SYSTEM, just like THEISM.
The only noteworthy difference is in WHAT they “believe”.
That and the funny hats.
Josh said..
Also, you state in an earlier post that, “Atheism is by definition an offensive belief system” implying that it is designed to dismiss religion entirely.
But, that is only a consequence of the belief, not necissarily a deliberate effort to prevoke believers of other ideas
Lol, once more Josh, you strain the very bounds of reason.
A, A-THEISM is ANTI-THEISM.
So yes. Atheism “dismisses” religious beliefs that include a belief in THEO. God.
As for it being a “consequence” of the belief, and not a deliberate effort to “prEvoke” believers of other ideas, … A. I never said provoke, and B. what exactly did one think the consequence of promoting a belief system that declares anothers belief system to be false, would be?
lol.
I mean come on Josh… focus here bud.
“I didn’t mean to rob the bank your honor,… it was only a consequence of my walking up to the teller with a gun and saying ‘stick em up’”.
Wrong, in fact you stated, “Both atheism and most fundamental religions share one thing in common. A predisposition to shut out facts, logic or evidence, in light of a pre-supposed set of beliefs, that may or may not be founded in reality. Atheism is as closed minded a belief system as is most fundamental theology, and therefore should be taken, parden the pun, ‘with a grain of salt.’”
A statement clearly intended to equate to two. I do not agree with your premise. Do you retract now?
Dismissing a belief is not the same as offense to the belief.Once again your premise is wrong.
The Atheist belief system purports that there is no god.
Therefore, to the THEISTS, who’s belief system centers on the existence of a god, the A-THEIST has just declared the THEISTS belief system to be false.
That’s what A-THEISM means.
The real problem here Josh, is people calling themselves A-THEISTS, and then trying to worm out of what that title entails.
If you, like me, just “DON’T KNOW”, then say “I just don’t know”.
Don’t declare yourself an A-THEIST, and then spend two arguing with the DICTIONARY that A-THEISM is not a belief system that denies the existence of god.
It is.
If you don’t know, then just say , “I don’t know”.
Hard words for many obviously, which is why we have so many A-THEISTS who don’t even know what the word means.
Josh
1, August 26, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Dismissing a belief is not the same as offense to the belief.Once again your premise is wrong
So we’re back to illiteracy now?
Thought you were learning.
From the vantage point of the THEIST, someone declaring their belief system is false, is OFFENSIVE.
Whether your capable of understanding that fact, is moot.
Sorry for the gramatical error, and I never said you said provoke. But, it is not “offensive” to disagree, It is merely a statement.
Word games are alright I guess, but you’d be hard pressed not to read “provoke” into you term “offensive.” Wiggle all you like, there isn’t much difference, and at any rate it’s moot so I don’t really mind dropping the point.
In reality a statement of disagreement is just that. Simply because my opinion differs does not make it “offensive.”
Once again, my “premise” is correct.
THEISM is a BELIEF SYSTEM, that purports the existence of a god or gods.
A-THEISM is a BELIEF SYSTEM is a belief system, that developed AFTER THEISM, which DENIES the existence of a god or gods.
A-THEISM did not come first.
THEISM did.
A-THEISM came after THEISM, do DENOUNCE THEISTS and their beliefs.
I cannot believe that people in Jonathan Turley’s blog, need that spelled out.
It is not “declaring someones belief system is false” to state that I am an atheist. It is a statement that I am an atheist. Yes, it means I disagree, but it is not “offensive”.
And what? Dictionaries are fine, but are you seriously contending that atheists are offensive because they state their belief that there is no god? Pretty shaky ground there.
Josh
Wiggle all you like, there isn’t much difference, and at any rate it’s moot so I don’t really mind dropping the point.
If my spelling out clearly, and without ambiguity my position equals to you “wiggling” then your mangled contortions must far surpass any seen during the recent olympic’s gymnastic floor routines.
Once more, so you cannot muddy my points with your inventions and distractions.
THEISM is a belief system that purports a god or gods exist.
A-THEISM is a belief system that came later, that DENIES that a god or gods exist.
Those positions have been mine from the beginning, and for all the insults, criticisms, and lengthy diatribes to the contrary, NO ONE has yet to refute those simple facts.
Here is the problem. You seem to be equating “opposing” with “offensive”.
A) I would deny those points.
B) It doesn’t matter.
Josh
1, August 26, 2008 at 3:36 pm
And what? Dictionaries are fine, but are you seriously contending that atheists are offensive because they state their belief that there is no god?
ahhh, now the strawmen come out.
As they always do.
I never said “atheists are offensive”.
Please do not invent or summarize my positiion.
You’re apparently not literate enough to do so this afternoon.
My position, one more time is as follows.
THEISM is a BELIEF SYSTEM that purports there is a god.
A-THEISM is a BELIEF SYSTEM that DENIES there is a god.
BOTH are equally untenable, and BOTH rely on that which cannot be demonstrated.
Therefore BOTH are in opposition to each other, hence the letter “A” in A-THEISM.
That is my position.
A-THEISM simply by virtue of being opposite to theism is not “offensive.” And there is no evidence that belief in a god came before disbelief. I suppose though that to come to a conclusion as to whether or not god existed would necissarily imply that you were considering it. So in that sense, I guess. But regardless of the decision of whatever human first dreamt up the idea, it still isn’t important. What is important is the idea that a rational conclusion based on observations and testing is not to be spoken aloud for fear od “offending” religion. It is no more offensive to say that I believe god doesn’t exist than it is to say I don’t like the rain to a farmer.
Josh
1, August 26, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Here is the problem. You seem to be equating “opposing” with “offensive
No Josh. The word “offensive” was ONE word, I said out of ten THOUSAND.
It was ONE DESCRIPTION that I used ONE TIME, to demonstrate the opposing nature of A-THEISM to religion.
I did NOT repeat that definition through my next 50 or so posts, yet here you are, clinging to that ONE WORD, after being shown to be incorrect in your earlier arguments.
You had to dig back, find that ONE WORD, and try and make more out of it than was ever implied.
So try and focus here Josh.
I am not using the word “offensive” since it offends you.
I am using clear, simple English, the SAME clear simple English I’ve used in EVERY SINGLE
COMMENT since that one.
Here is my position, for the umpteenth time, for you to either refute, or acknowledge.
—
THEISM is a BELIEF SYSTEM that purports a god or gods exist.
A-THEISM is a BELIEF SYSTEM that DENIES a god or gods exist.
—
Any questions?
Josh
1, August 26, 2008 at 3:45 pm
A-THEISM simply by virtue of being opposite to theism is not “offensive.”
Drop the offensive argument. I will not permit you to twist my position further.
It was never the crux of my position, nor does my position rely on the word offense.
Yes. Why is that “offensive?”
Josh
And there is no evidence that belief in a god came before disbelief.
Amazing. I mean really, amazing.
Uhhh… Josh… pray tell how can there be a belief system that DENIES the existence of a god or gods, if someone hasn’t FIRST believed in them?
Lol.
Now you’ve impressed me.
That was an amazing display of ignorance.
Here, here’s Josh’s idea of how A-THEISM came about.
A-THEIST “there is no god”
NON A-THEIST “what’s a god?”
CroMM,
For most of history people didn’t believe in bacteria. Therefore disbelief in bacteria came before belief.
Oh, I understand. I can’t use words that mean the same thing as you clearly intended i.e. “provoke” and I can’t use words you clearly used i.e. “offensive”. Ok then, lets argue the crux of your position, which is what now?
Not true, ignorance of bacteria came first, not disbelief.
That aside assuming it to be true that people disbellievedthing they didn’t er eisted, what is the point?
What an amazing display.
Ok guys, I’ll bite.
Please show me the BELIEF SYSTEM, that existed PRIOR to the discovery BACTERIA, that declared BACTERIA does not exist.
A-BACTERIANISM if you will.
I’ll be waiting for that one.
A-THEISM, can only exist POST THEISM.
Not PRE-THEISM.
If there is no THEISM, there is no A-THESIM.
You guys must be really smart, huh?
Wow, keyboard acting up. Meant to say that assuming you were correct, and disbelief in bacteria came first. What of it?
Logical fallacy sir. The word must have necissarily come second, but the thing itself does not.
Still don’t understand the point though and how it applies at all.
That you “don’t understand” the point Josh, is not in doubt.
Even though I’ve spelled it out for you in as plain and simple English as possible, more than a dozen times and several dozen last night.
The “point” Josh, is and has been the same all along.
MY POSITION, is that A-THEISM is like THEISM.
BOTH BELIEF SYSTEMS.
BOTH FOUNDED ON UNTENABLE POSITIONS.
THATS MY POSITION which I have repeatedly posted for you, and others.
Try to twist it if you want, but I’ll bring you back on course, everytime.
PERFECT POINT and still wrong. That’s where the argument lies. Atheism is indeed not founded on untenable positions. There’s the problem.
How on earth I was supposed to get that point out of the rediculous chicken and egg argument is beyond me.
That you want to digress, and take the point to where you think it’s easier for you to debate, is also not in doubt.
Or that you choose to ignore the fact that several people in here, some professing to be A-THEISTS, have been debating with me whether or not A-THEISM is a BELIEF SYSTEM.
Since you have dismissed them, and acknowledged that A-THEISM is a BELIEF SYSTEM, we are past square one.
Now, if you like, we can discuss the second portion of my position, in that they are both UNTENABLE BELIEF SYSTEMS.
Those are, and have been my ONLY POINTS, since this began last night.
Irregardless of all the strawdogs along the way.
And, now that we came to the point of this whole thing, I have to go to work. Oh well.
Josh
1, August 26, 2008 at 4:06 pm
How on earth I was supposed to get that point out of the rediculous chicken and egg argument is beyond me
Yea, how on earth you were supposed to get that point, even though I spelled it out in plain English in those same words several dozen times, is beyond all of us.
We obviously cannot expect you to read what’s in front of your face, now can we?
I did not debate you as to whether it was a belief system. It clearly is. I take issue with the untenable part.
However I must be off, really. Maybe later tonight?
As for the “ridiculous chicken before the egg argument” that my cackling friend, was YOUR argument.
Here, allow me to repost your words for you, since you cannot seem to remember what YOU say from minute to minute.
Josh
1, August 26, 2008 at 3:45 pm
And there is no evidence that belief in a god came before disbelief.
See Josh?
YOU professed the mind numbingly dense statement, that A-THESIM did not come before THEISM.
I corrected this ridiculous uneducated remark, by pointing out that without THEISM, there is no A-THEISM.
So yes, it was a RIDICULOUS argument.
“YOUR” ridiculous argument.
CroMM,
If I don’t believe in a god because the idea of a god has never occurred to me, what does that make me if not an atheist? I’m not an agnostic, because I don’t think that there’s no way to know if there’s a god. I’m not a theist because I don’t believe in a god. It seems to me that the motivation for not believing in a god is moot.
So since we don’t know if the belief in a god has been around as long as all of humanity, we remain unsure as to which came first, atheism or theism. Entomology is no clue because the English language was formed by theists, so is going to be biased to their reality.
Josh
1, August 26, 2008 at 4:05 pm
PERFECT POINT and still wrong. That’s where the argument lies. Atheism is indeed not founded on untenable positions. There’s the problem
No Josh, theres YOUR problem.
For something to be tenable, you have to be able to demonstrate it.
So feel free, to prove to me, and everyone here, that there is no god.
When you can prove that, you’ll have a tenable position.
If however you cannot produce proof that a god or gods do not exist, then you are left with an UNTENABLE POSITION.
Gyges
1, August 26, 2008 at 4:17 pm
So since we don’t know if the belief in a god has been around as long as all of humanity, we remain unsure as to which came first, atheism or theism
Really?
Really? I have to explain this again?
Okay class.. pay attention now.
THEISM = A BELIEF THAT THERE IS A GOD.
A-THEISM = A BELIEF THAT THERE IS NO GOD.
In order to have a DISBELIEF in something, someone FIRST must have had believed that thing existed.
Otherwise, who’d know what you were talking about?
A-THEIST “there is no god”
NON A-THEIST “what’s a god?”
If however simple logic is lost on you Gyges, then I suggest you research Diagoris, (First Atheist) and the foundations of A-THEISM, which didn’t come into play until the 5th Century CE, long after the establishment of religions.
It seems as if you boys want to just ‘argue’ any point with me, rather than address my main point.
I will be happy to debate the untenable foundations of A-THEISM with you however, per your request Josh, this evening, but we need to find another thread. This ones bogged down with comments.
Perhaps the NEPAL Supreme Court thread? It’s pretty much dead, and theres room for comments.
Say “7′ish”?
CroMM,
Your Entomology argument holds no water. Did the Arctic exist before the Antarctica? By your logic it must have. I assume you’d point out correctly that the people who coined those terms knew about the Arctic before they knew about Antarctica so the language is biased as a result of their “reality.” That’s exactly my point, since the people that formed the Greek language (which is were we get the word) were theistic, so is the language. But the Greek language doesn’t reflect what was going on BEFORE or after its formation, only what was going on during. Nor does it say that all Greeks felt that way, just enough of the people to affect the language. So the most we can say is from your entomological argument is that the Greeks as a culture believed in gods while the language was being formed.
Josh and I are simply saying that we don’t know if the earliest humans believed in gods or not.
Gyges
1, August 26, 2008 at 4:54 pm
CroMM,
Your Entomology argument holds no water. Did the Arctic exist before the Antarctica?
You’re kidding right?
You’re comparing Antarctica and the Artic with THEISM and A-THEISM?
You Bass players must smoke a lot of dope or something ay?
Ok, one more time.
THEISM = A belief that there is a god or gods.
A-THEISM = A belief that there is NO god or gods.
If no one beleived or suggested THEISM, then there could be no A-THESIM.
How can you “not believe in something” that has never been suggested?
ATHEIST “there is no god”
NON A-THEIST “what’s a god?”
You learning yet?
Gyges said
Josh and I are simply saying that we don’t know if the earliest humans believed in gods or not
No, what you both SAID was there was no evidence that A-THEISM came after THEISM, which it must have.
And you used ridiculous logic like this, to try and sell that ignorant statement.
Gyges
1, August 26, 2008 at 3:54 pm
CroMM,
For most of history people didn’t believe in bacteria. Therefore disbelief in bacteria came before belief
See, people did not “disbelieve in bacteria” for most of history.
People were IGNORANT as to the existence of bacteria.
For people to have not “believed” in bacteria, they’d have to first KNOW what it was or at least be aware of its existence.
They were not.
Thus, you have confused IGNORANCE of something, with DISBELIEF in something.
In order to “DISBELIEVE” in a god, you’d first have to know what a god is.
Therefore, BELIEF in a god, came BEFORE DISBELIEF in one.
IGNORANCE of the existence of a god, may have existed prior to both, however A-THEISM did not rear it’s head, until THEISM first arrrived.
You cannot have A-THEISM, without THEISM.
It’s amazing to me you need this explained.
This little diddy was supposed to make it easy for you to understand.
Try thinking for a minute, and rereading this.
It’s fun.
ATHEIST “there is no god”
NON A-THEIST “what’s a god?”
If however you wish to persist in your argument, that “IGNORANCE” of something, equates to “DISBELIEF”, then I am sure theres more than one A-THEIST here who will take offense at having their “DISBELIEF” in a god defined by you as merely “IGNORANCE”.
Just FYI.
CroMM,
I am learning something. I’m learning that you’re so convinced of your own moral and intellectual superiority that you refuse to listen to anyone who’s opinion is different then yours. And I do mean listen and not just consider. You think that you know what the only possible counter against your opinion is, and so don’t bother to read the content of the actual posts.
I gave you a second chance because you seemed to be actually engaged in a discussion and not just reading off your script. I’m learning how wrong that was. I’m learning that I feel sorry for you, because while the rest of us are free to engage in a discussion in which all parties walk away having learned something, you’re stuck replaying your “great debates” from the past (you’ve said repeatedly that this is how ALL your debates go with atheists).
I’m learning that my old policy of not reading your posts is better then my “new” policy of treating you like a reasonable person. So thank you for teaching me.
“Michael Spindell said..
I’m not interested in dictionary’s though, they are the last refuge of the pedant and the pretender
No Mike.
They’re the last refuge of the literate, when dealing with the illiterate.”
No they’re the last refuge of the ignorant egotist trying to prove his intelligence via absurd debate. I’ll give you this crommy, you certainly are energized. Too bad you have all this energy in the service of nothing. Before you state it, yes I have no interest in engaging in further debate with you. I’m already confident in my own self worth and I don’t need to pretend to myself that I’m worthy by exhausting people with useless argumentation. By the way, has anyone ever told you that you argue like a Bush Republican? A plethora of never ending bluster, a constant shifting of subject and much sturm unt drang over the inconsequential.
Gyges
1, August 26, 2008 at 5:30 pm
CroMM,
I am learning something. I’m learning that you’re so convinced of your own moral and intellectual superiority that you refuse to listen to anyone who’s opinion is different then yours.
No Gyges, your “opinion” isn’t just different than mine.
It’s different than the facts.
Than the DICTIONARY’s.
Than reality.
Like most atheists and their apologists, you find yourself confounded by your own words, and thus turn to personal insults against your opponent, and vague generalities, since your position has crumbled away.
Fact. You tried to state “ATHEISM” may have come BEFORE “THEISM”.
That is impossible, your “opinion” aside.
Now that you see the fallacy of that statement, you digress to insulting me, and summarily exhalting yourself to a lofty position of some preassumed superiority.
I am not attacking you. I am attacking the ignorant positions you are trying to sell here in an vain attempt to refute my position.
When you say something smart, I’ll applaud it.
But when you say stupid things, like ATHEISM may have come BEFORE THEISM, then you are saying childrens babble, and should not take offense when someone corrects that ridiculous silliness.
You said…
Gyges
1, August 26, 2008 at 4:17 pm
So since we don’t know if the belief in a god has been around as long as all of humanity, we remain unsure as to which came first, atheism or theism
When the fact is, it is only YOU, and perhaps Josh, who remain “unsure” as to which came first.
The rest of us are quite aware that THEISM by definition, predates A-THEISM.
You cannot “disbelieve” in something you’ve never heard of.
“See Michael?
You can make all the post-lying explanations you want, but your words prove you out.”
Sadly, you lack the capacity to insult me because I see you as you are. It isn’t pretty. How is it that you argue with and insult everyone. Is this a website of fools, or is it that you’re the fool? I choose the latter position sadly, you’re a bright man with who I agree on some issues, but you are awash in vitriol.
Michael Spindell
1, August 26, 2008 at 5:45 pm
I’m not interested in dictionary’s though, they are the last refuge of the pedant and the pretender
No Mike.
They’re the last refuge of the literate, when dealing with the illiterate.”
No they’re the last refuge of the ignorant egotist trying to prove his intelligence via absurd debate
No Michael, they are the last refuge of the literate, when dealing with the illiterate.
When someone persists in manipulating words beyond their meanings to try and prove their point, the Dictionary is where literate folks turn to expose illiteracy.
As for my proving my “intelligence” I am trying to do no such thing. I am merely proving a point.
A fact.
Babies and children don’t like facts being proven, so like you, they resort to name calling when their “opinions” crumble in the face of reality.
Babies and children also lie, when cornered on facts, as you did. A lie which you’ve yet to own up to.
So allow me to once more draw back your attention to your original strawman, and then the LIE you told, trying to deny launching a strawman.
First you presented this strawman, claiming I said something that I never said.
where we part company is in your insistence that ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and more lately Dawkins
Then, when I pointed out to you that was a straw argument I never made, you lied, denying you ever said it.
I too never said that you said ” “ALL” atheists repredsent(sis) the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins.”
See? Your words are there. You can climb on your high horse all you want, but your strawman and your lie, will follow you until you act like an adult, and admit to being caught.
Michael Spindell
1, August 26, 2008 at 5:51 pm
“See Michael?
Sadly, you lack the capacity to insult me because I see you as you are
Well since I have not insulted you, nor anyone, but merely attacked illogical and incorrect positions, we see you still haven’t learned your lesson about inventing strawmen.
You insult me, with nothing but tripe, no facts to refute any position of mine, then accuse me of doing the insulting.
Another lie, from a guy not able to admit when he’s wrong.
First you presented this strawman, claiming I said something that I never said.
where we part company is in your insistence that ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and more lately Dawkins
Then, when I pointed out to you that was a straw argument I never made, you lied, denying you ever said it.
I too never said that you said ” “ALL” atheists repredsent(sis) the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins.”
See?
Caught in a lie.
And now insulting me, rather than owning up to it.
Micheal Spindell said…
where we part company is in your insistence that ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and more lately Dawkins
THEN Micheal Spindell said…
I too never said that you said ” “ALL” atheists repredsent(sis) the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins.”
I would have liked to have joined in this conversation, but it’s been too much to follow and still keep the dog fed on schedule.
It is difficult to call yourself an atheist when so many others want to tell you what you believe. Dictionaries use the theologian’s definition, “denies a God exists.” Perhaps theologians have greater influence on the dictionary than the many atheists who over the centuries have said and written clearly that they have no belief in a god but do not deny the existence of a god.
There are some who fit the theologian definition, but for many of us the admission that we are simply unable to know the unknown or unknowable is a salient point. If you remove it from the definition, then you are only counting a subset of atheists. If you say that someone who denies there is a god has made a leap of faith, I can’t argue with you, but that has nothing to do with my atheism. I only reject absurd gods and if I find one that isn’t, I’ll cease to be an atheist.
How is it someone always comes in to cover for you guys?
Ok Litz, allow me to illuminate.
If you believe that there may be a god, then you are not by defintion, and A-THEIST.
That children like to play word games, like a little girl calling herself a Princess, unless someone has endowed her with royalty and it’s trappings, she’s still just a little girl calling herself princess.
A-THEISM is the belief that there is no god.
You may say the same thing, by saying it is a “DISBELIEF that there is a god”.
They mean the same things.
I didn’t create the defintion. Talk to Diagoras and those who came after him.
I am merely providing you with proper English, and proper defintions of A-THEISM.
Children decide their own meanings for words.
The rest of us use the dictionary and recorded authoritative documents to decide the meanings of words.
It’s like mespo727272 said so clearly yesterday;
Words are not infinitely malleable.
And that includes the word A-THEIST.
You may want to call yourself one. Heck call yourself anything you want. But that doesn’t make me, or the English language, or the facts, wrong.
A-THEISM is the belief that there is no god.
It came AFTER THEISM, and is an untenable belief system that like THEISM, cannot prove it’s founding tenet.
Like I said earlier.
The real problem here, is so many people calling themselves A-THEIST, who don’t know what the word means.
Basic atheism is NOT a belief. It is the LACK OF belief…
*****
Unlike you, I know exactly what I am saying, and just like Michael,
I don’t need your blessing – Thank God
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-definitions.html
This is the definition from Oxford:
Oxford English Dictionary (OED), Second Edition
Here is how the OED defines “atheism”:
atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.
disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.
deny
1. To contradict or gainsay (anything stated or alleged); to declare to be untrue or untenable, or not what it is stated to be.
2. Logic. The opposite of affirm; to assert the contradictory of (a proposition).
3. To refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine or tenet); to reject as untrue or unfounded; the opposite of assert or maintain.
4. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge (a person or thing) as having a certain character or certain claims; to disown, disavow, repudiate, renounce.
Note that the OED definition covers the whole spectrum of atheist belief, from weak atheism (those who do not believe in or credit the existence of one or more gods) to strong atheism (those who assert the contrary position, that a god does not exist).
Here is the OED’s definition of “agnostic”:
agnostic A. sb. One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.
It is interesting to compare this to Huxley’s definition.
Webster’s 3rd New International Dictionary Unabridged
Here is Webster’s definition of atheism:
atheism n 1 a: disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity b: the doctrine that there is neither god nor any other deity–compare AGNOSTICISM 2: godlessness esp. in conduct
disbelief n: the act of disbelieving : mental refusal to accept (as a statement or proposition) as true
disbelieve vb vt : to hold not to be true or real : reject or withold belief in vi : to withold or reject belief
Note that again, both strong (1b) and weak (1a) atheism are included in the definition.
Atheist books
One might argue that the term “Jewish” should properly be defined by Jews, and that similarly the term “atheist” should be defined by atheists. So, here are a few quotes from popular atheist books about atheism.
It turns out that the word atheism means much less than I had thought. It is merely the lack of theism.
Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god–both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter.
[Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist, p. 99.
Freedom From Religion Foundation, 1992.]
The word “atheism,” however, has in this contention to be construed unusally. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of “atheist” in English is “someone who asserts there is no such being as God,” I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix “a” to be read in the same way in “atheist” as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as “amoral,” “atypical,” and “asymmetrical.” In this interpretation an atheist becomes: someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels “positive atheist” for the former and “negative atheist” for the latter.
[Antony G.N. Flew and Paul Edwards, God, Freedom, and Immortality p. 14.
Prometheus, 1984.]
If you look up “atheism” in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek “a” means “without” or “not” and “theos” means “god.” From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God.
[Michael Martin, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, p. 463.
Temple University Press, 1990.]
Martin goes on to cite sveral other well-known nontheists in history who used or implied this definition of “atheism,” including Baron d’Holbach (1770), Richard Carlile (1826), Charles Southwell (1842), Charles Bradlaugh (1876), and Anne Besant (1877).
The average theologian (there are exceptions, of course) uses “atheist” to mean a person who denies the existence of a God. Even an atheist would agree that some atheists (a small minority) would fit this definition. However, most atheists would stongly dispute the adequacy of this definition. Rather, they would hold that an atheist is a person without a belief in God. The distiniction is small but important. Denying something means that you have knowledge of what it is that you are being asked to affirm, but that you have rejected that particular concept. To be without a belief in God merely means that yhe term “god” has no importance, or possibly no meaning, to you. Belief in God is not a factor in your life. Surely this is quite different from denying the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is the lack of belief.
When we examine the components of the word “atheism,” we can see this distinction more clearly. The word is made up of “a-” and “-theism.” Theism, we will all agree, is a belief in a God or gods. The prefix “a-” can mean “not” (or “no”) or “without.” If it means “not,” then we have as an atheist someone who is not a theist (i.e., someone who does not have a belief in a God or gods). If it means “without,” then an atheist is someone without theism, or without a belief in God.
[Gordon Stein (Ed.), An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism, p. 3.
Prometheus, 1980.]
Copyright© Internet Infidels® 1995-2008. All rights reserved.
« disclaimer »
As I have accurately predicted twice now, Patty has come in to post a lengthy diatribe of random comments, thoughts, defintions and rhetoric, none of which disproves anything I said.
Patty, like most A-THEISTS, attempts to endow the word “DIS-BELIEF” with some special powers, that make it different than a belief in the opposite.
I DIBELEIVE Patty is correct.
I BELIEVE Patty is not correct.
Same thing.
To the literate.
Most A-THEISTS you will find, like Patty, will or Litz, will try to introduce their own meanings into the word Belief.
It’s what children and the illiterate do, when confronted with a fact that does not sit well with them.
But the fact is, whether I say, I believe Patty is not correct, or, if I sai, I DIS-believe Patty is correct, I have said the same thing.
Patty’s problem is consistent with the other A-THEISTS in here.
They don’t know what the word means.
I disbelieve Patty knows what she’s talking about.
I believe Patty doesn’t know what she’s talking about.
See?
Same thing.
To the literate.
“But the fact is, whether I say, I believe Patty is not correct, or, if I sai, I DIS-believe Patty is correct, I have said the same thing.”
Wrong again, ‘apeman’ – an anglophile you are not!
Your refusal to believe (ie DISbelief) does not determine whether I am correct. Which, in this case, I most certainly am! I provided you the the word origin.
“In Greek “a” means “without” or “not” and “theos” means “god.” From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist.”
You can believe whatever you want. It has no effect.
Patty said..
Your refusal to believe (ie DISbelief) does not determine whether I am correct
Nor did I imply that it did.
You are incorrect, however that statement, as anyone with a brain would be able to deduce, was stated to demonstrate that a “DISBELIEF” as opposed to a belief in the opposite, is the same thing.
Like the typical A-THEIST, you draw from time worn A-THEIST doctrines, to try and empower the word “DISBELIEF” with some special powers that it does not posses.
The word DISBELIEF means the same thing as a BELIEF in the opposite.
Hence;
I DISBELIEVE you are literate.
Or…
I BELIEVE you are not literate.
They mean the same things, but only to the literate.
“Words are not infinitely malleable.”
Neither are they intractable. If people who believe as I do continue to call ourselves atheists for another 200 years, will it then be time to allow the broader definition? The word has already been argued for centuries. Loosen up a little. I don’t want to reprint my stationary.
And, when you write something like this:
“Atheism is by definition an offensive belief system, much like many of the religions it is designed to dismiss. After all, forming a belief system to dismiss and refute others personal beliefs is clearly intended to stir up antagonism, so we shouldn’t be surprised by these atheists and their “gay Jesus”. Nor should we be offended.”
understand that you are insulting a much broader audience than your favored definition would allow. But I suspect you knew that.
In fact, lets take a look at the Dictionary defintions Patty posted trying to assert her A-THEIST doctrine.
Patty produced this definition from Websters.
A defintion I might add, that I already produced last night. All she had to do was scroll up.
But here lets look at it again. She posts the whole thing, so lets look.
From WEBSTERS courtesy of Patty C.
atheism n 1 a: disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity b: the doctrine that there is neither god nor any other deity–compare AGNOSTICISM 2: godlessness esp. in conduct
So we see, that Atheism, as I have said, is a DOCTRINE.
A DOCTRINE is defined as a set of principles or BELIEFS.
So Patty herself, has provided us here this evening, with a defintion that identifies A-THEISM as a DOCTRINE or BELIEF.
As I said, and in contratiction to her assertations that somehow it is not a belief.
But Patty doesn’t stop there. Oh no. Patty gives us more. Much more.
She provides us with a defintion of disbelief;
n: the act of disbelieving : mental refusal to accept (as a statement or proposition) as true
disbelieve vb vt : to hold not to be true or real : reject or withold belief in vi : to withold or reject belief
Thus we see, Patty providing the defintion of Disbelief, as an ACTIVE ACTION, “rejecting” belief.
Thus adding credence to my earlier statements that some sought to refute, that A-THEISM exists to denounce THEISM.
Which it does.
So we see, that not only is DISBELIEF the same as BELIEF in the opposite, we also see that the DISBELIEF of A-THEISM, is an active REJECTION of THEISM.
Thanks Patty.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
litzell
1, August 26, 2008 at 7:53 pm
“Words are not infinitely malleable.”
Neither are they intractable. If people who believe as I do continue to call ourselves atheists for another 200 years, will it then be time to allow the broader definition
Boy, the tag teams are out in force tonight.
Ok Litz. If people who believe “AS YOU DO”, continue to call yourselves A-THEISTS for 200 years, I am sure the dictionary will evolve the defintion of the word.
In the meantime, those of us who speak the English Language, will defer to the references provided us and not your own personal “my atheism” defintions.
Children invent their own meanings for words, as do the illiterate.
Adults, literate adults, do not.
Hence, by your defintion, I could say that “my atheism” is scratching my butt with a fig twig on Tuesday while eating Salmon caught in the teeth of a wild grizzly bear.
Hey, that’s “my atheism”. Who are you to refute it?
I could say that. If I were a child, or illiterate.
But since I speak English, I use the dictionary, like most literate adults when someone challenges the generally accepted meaning of a word.
And the dictionary, says you’re wrong.
As does logic.
I did not pull my definition out of my ass. I struggled with the term. I talked to others. I read and studied (including the Anthology Patty referenced). I didn’t stop with the one-line definition in Websters. My use of the atheist label is not capricious, childish, illiterate or unconsidered. My process began in 1975 when I gave up my childhood religion and it was just last year that I decided I could take on the label only because I satisfied myself that I could be atheist without professing omniscience. I do not believe in a god or gods, I call myself an atheist, and I’m hardly unique.
litzell
1, August 26, 2008 at 8:37 pm
I did not pull my definition out of my ass. I struggled with the term. I talked to others. I read and studied
Well then perhaps your problem lies with your reading comprehension skills. You might try Hooked on Phonic’s, I hear it does wonders.
In the meantime, I’d suggest re-reading the dictionary and even the A-THEIST websites, so that you can understand that A-THEISM is the opposite of THEISM, hence A-THEISM is a disbelief in a god or gods.
If you believe in a god, or even suspect one may exist, AND if you MUST have some defining word or group to correlate your beliefs to, then you would be defined at that point, as an agnostic.
Or, you could skip the organized “BELIEF SYSTEMS”, and just admit you don’t know.
Like I do.
And many like me.
See Litz, the problem I have with A-THEISM is the same problem I have with THEISM.
Get enough people together in a room, let them think they’ve got some answers to questions that no one has yet answered, and next thing you know they’re clowning around in government.
Next thing you know, we end up with things like The Suppression of Heresy, The Inquisitions, The Crusades, and the less obvious but nonetheless destructive results of the mingling of church and state.
Thats why I think, “BELIEF SYSTEMS” are a bad thing.
And A-THEISM, like THEISM, is a belief system.
And one rapidly gaining footholds throughout the new “progressive movement”. A fact evident by the number of bloggers in progressive blogs professing A-THEISM without understanding what the word really means.
And if A-THEISM replaces THEISM as the new Belief System that influences our government, it is not at all improbable that THEISTS may become the subject of discrimination and or persecution, much like A-THEISTS have been.
We have all the “Belief Systems” we need.
What we need now, is a few calm heads, who don’t need belief systems to correlate their understanding of the universe, and who are capable of simply saying, “gee, I don’t know“.
Ok, so here I go.
Chiken and Egg argument (only posting this for the benifit of CroMM’s logic.) –
Atheism as a belief could have existed before theism. The first man to ever consider whether or not a god may exist could just as easily concluded that there isn’t a god, thereby being the first atheist and pre-theist by virtue of no one having considered it before. You have no proof otherwise an cannot unless you have a time machine I don’t know about. It is logical fallacy to say that just because one is a disbelief that the subsequent belief necissarily happened first. There is no other way to view it period. You simply do not know which came first. I’m sorry if you can’t understand the complexity of such an obvious statement. It is still fact. [This by the way was not an argument I started, it was something you first posted as fact that I pointed out was unknown. It is all beside the point anyway.]
Atheism is an untenable belief argument (the actual point of this problem)
Atheism, as you have suggested in previous posts, is not
“predispos[ed] to shut out facts, logic or evidence, in light of a pre-supposed set of beliefs, that may or may not be founded in reality.” Actually, atheism is very much grounded in rigorous testing of the environment we all inhabit and on the subsequent results. Science to date has no (as in zero, zilch, nada) evidence that god has been necissary in the creation or continuance of the known universe. A surprising fact in light of His supposed prominence in its creation. You might find it interesting to look up figures on the number of prominent science figures who are theists. I suppose that the people we trust to help us understand the world around us are all really out to disprove the existance of Him.
As to the untenable charge? That depends on your point of view. I mean, you could say that it is untenable to disbelieve in leprichans and dragons. I mean, just because there is absolutely no evidence for there existance is not proof that they do not exist. Perhaps this is why most professed atheists more accurately describe themselves as agnostics with very strong leanings towards atheism. But, if you accept as I do that a complete lack of evidence for something, combined with its complete absence from known reality, and lack of necessity for the thing in question amounts to non-existance, then we are on the same page.
Additionally, as science reaches new heights in the heavens and approaches understanding of the smallest particles in the universe the answer may indeed be known. If we truly encounter the simplest particles possible and understand there interactions then there may be no more room for God. The last of his hiding places could be uncovered and all reality may be explained without His involvement. This would be the death of Him.
Josh
1, August 27, 2008 at 12:20 am
Ok, so here I go.
Chiken and Egg argument (only posting this for the benifit of CroMM’s logic.) –
Atheism as a belief could have existed before theism. The first man to ever consider whether or not a god may exist could just as easily concluded that there isn’t a god, thereby being the first atheist and pre-theist by virtue of no one having considered it before. You have no proof otherwise an cannot unless you have a time machine I don’t know about
Lol, Josh, I applaud your ability to contort logic beyond the bounds of sanity.
A. In order for someone to contemplate the notion of a god or gods, he or someone would first have to consider the viability of the existence of one as fact. Otherwise, there would be nothing for him to believe.
A-THEISM is the opposite of THEISM, which is a “belief in THEO, which is god. A-THEISM therefore, a disbelief in a god, could not exist if no one first held a belief in a god. It would equate to belief in nothing, or disbelief in nothing.
Your strained logic scenario, where a primitive man in his own mind suddenly creates the concept of a god, and in the same instance, concludes it’s not a plausible concept, does not equate to A-THEISM, which is a doctrine, that professes that there is no god.
Your scenario defines someone inventing something then dismissing it in the same breath, never having believed it in the first place, which is of course absurdity.
If the thing was never professed, then not believing in it would not constitute anything.
It first must be professed, for one to deny it.
B. There is ample evidence of the existence of early religion long before any records of atheism emerged. ATHEISM as we know it, first emerged as a school of thought around the 5th century CE. Diagoras, considered the “first A-THEIST”, was famous for his opposition to the worship of deities. There were ample recorded religions prior to 5 CE. Heck, Judaism dates back 1500 years prior to Diagoras and the onset of Atheism in the Middle East. To say we don’t have evidence of religious belief prior to A-THEISM is an uneducated statement at best.
Furthermore, Anthropology shows us that Religious beliefs such as Animism, dates back to Prehistoric times, with religious artificats and symbolence being discovered as far back as the end of the fourth phase of the Pleistocene Ice Age, which is prior to the emergence of Homo Sapiens as a species, about 70,000 years ago.
And if thats not far back enough for you, we even have discovered evidence of rudementary religious belief in China dating back to the old stone age, about half a million years ago.
Sorry …..doooood….but your “logic” strained and elongated as it may be, is an “anti-logic”.
I’ll call it A-LOGIC.
It was a nice try, but the fact is, A-THEISM, as introduced to the world as a belief system a mere 2500 years ago, and religious belief predates that by a long, long, long long time.
What else you got?
While it’s true you must consider something before it is dismissed, it doesn’t imply that you believed it, only that you considered its possibility. And, by the way, you are wrong. Many people throughout history have thought up things themselves only to dismiss them. It isn’t implausible at all. And, since it isn’t usually of value to record your absence of belief in something until you encouter an opposing viewpoint I’m not surprised in the least that older texts portray theism before they mention atheism. And I still don’t care how far back the evidence goes, to prove your conclusion based on your false premise you would have to be able to show that the first person considering gods existance chose to be a believer. You can’t. Can you?
Inventing imaginary scenario’s of what may have went on inside of some guys mind, and purporting them as scientific reason, or logic, to define a “Belief System”, is the reasoning of a child.
If only one guy thought it, then it wasn’t an “ISM”
Hence, it wasn’t ATHEISM.
And if that same guy dismissed it while simultaneously inventing it, I’m not even sure it qualifies as a “thought”.
Confusion would be a more applicable word.
Or perhaps an early sign of Dementia.
No, the reasoning of a child assumes that they know what happened when there isn’t the slightest bit of evidence. The reasoning of an adult accurately says, “I don’t know. There isn’t enough evidence.”
So, I can still propose a plausib;e scenario by which even more people disbelieved god first. The number is irrelevant. I dunno, make it a thousand people. You still can’t prove otherwise.
Josh said…
And I still don’t care how far back the evidence goes
Well that is apparent. Scientific fact for you, and literacy only goes as far as it agrees with your position.
Once again, any child can invent imaginary scenarios, particularly those that can never be measured, and present them as scientific arguments.
They are not.
I can say anyone may have thought anything, but it is the vain babbling of a child if I do. The fact is, we’re talking about A-THEISM, NOT the random thought patterns that you would like to invent for someone imaginary person of whom is nameless, and unidentifiable.
A-THEISM is a Doctrine. A BELIEF SYSTEM.
What some imaginary character you wish to invent to present as scientific debate, may have thought, is irrelevant to the topic.
A-THEISM first appeared as a belief system, around 2500 years ago.
Regardless of whatever fairy tales you wish to invent here to sell your crumbling position.
The fact is that the evidence doesn’t exist. A responsible person knowing that would agree that it is impossible to know, and since one idea does not belief does not necissarily preceed the other, you can not tell.
Sorry, since one belief does not necissarily preceed the other, you can not tell.
Ugg, stop assuming I don’t care about the evidence. I do. But in this case, the only evidence that would be conclusive is unavailable. And, you know better.
Josh
1, August 27, 2008 at 1:13 am
So, I can still propose a plausib;e scenario by which even more people disbelieved god first. The number is irrelevant. I dunno, make it a thousand people. You still can’t prove otherwise.
First, your scenario is many things.
Plausible, is not among them.
Second, you now have created a thousand imaginary characters, who somehow managed to disbelieve in something, as a group, that NO ONE EVER PROFESSED.
Third, your childs argument, of inventing ridiculous scenario’s that are impossible to prove one way or the other, is a sure token of the THEIST and the A-THEIST fanatic, who does not ascribe to science as he claims, but the realm of the fairy tale.
It is downright intellectual dishonesty to say that religious texts are older therefore it came first. It is not conclusive evidence and you know it.
Of course they’re impossible to prove, that’s the point. If you can’t disprove them then you are as good as admitting that you don’t know. So then stop pretending you do.
Josh
1, August 27, 2008 at 1:18 am
Ugg, stop assuming I don’t care about the evidence. I do. But in this case, the only evidence that would be conclusive is unavailable. And, you know better.
No you don’t care about the evidence. You have proven that.
See Josh, we have schools, universites, professors, like Professor Turely for example.
They use things called books, and facts, and historical data.
Not imaginary scenarios that children dream up that cannot possibly be examined or tested in any way.
No one in the history of mankind, has yet to produce a meter, or machine capable of telling us what someone is thinking in a narrative manner.
Therefore, your scenario, like most childrens scenarios, presents the impossible demand that someone produce evidence to prove what some imaginary character you have invented, may have possibly been thinking thousands of years ago, without even identifying the indvidual or records associated with him.
That’s what kiddies do Josh.
Not scholars and not adults.
Ok then, what book contains the evidence for a group believing in god before a group disbelieved in god?
Oh, wait, there isn’t one, because nobody knows. You are phoning it in now CroMM. It could have happened your way and it could have happened mine. Of course you can not prove it no matter how many books you read. You are making stuff up sir.
Josh
1, August 27, 2008 at 1:20 am
Of course they’re impossible to prove, that’s the point. If you can’t disprove them then you are as good as admitting that you don’t know. So then stop pretending you do
Lol, no Josh, I know you are inventing a childs argument to sell your untenable position that dismisses thousands of years of recorded history in place of your own little fairy tale.
See, in school, you’ll learn that A-THEISM, first showed itself as a DOCTRINE of BELIEF, around 2500 years ago.
In school, you will NOT learn your little implausible, impossible fairy tale.
So while you may think you’re being smart, you’re really denying education, historical records, and fact.
See, we are not talking about fairy tales.
We are talking about A-THEISM.
So you are now, not arguing with me, but like your fellow A-THEISTS and or A-THEIST Apologists, you are arguing with the Dictionary, and Recorded History.
What you are trying to pass now, would not pass on a paper on ancient religion, or its relationship, to A-THEISM.
Because you are not defining A-THEISM with your scenario. You are INVENTING a defintion for it, that is not only ludicrious (the notion of creating a belief system to denies a belief system no one believes in), but not plausible.
It is not impossible or even implausible that people considered a god and subsequently decided there was no god. It may not be likely, but you must admit it could have happened. An honest person must also admit that evidence for this would be unlikely to exist today and almost impossible to find or prove at any rate. There, an honest person must admit that they do not know.
History shows us when A-THEISM first emerged as a Belief System in our world.
It does not show us your fairy tale.
It shows us facts. Read about Diagoras. Read about Hinduism.
They will help you to understand the ridiculousness, of what you just tried to sell here tonite.
The dictionary definition describes an idea that existed before the dictionary was created sir.
Josh
1, August 27, 2008 at 1:30 am
It is not impossible or even implausible that people considered a god and subsequently decided there was no god. It may not be likely, but you must admit it could have happened.
I must admit no such thing.
It is entirely implausible, and impossible.
If no one had ever defined a god, then there would be no concept of a god, for the people to deny.
Duh…
If you would like to continue can we move to the next thread? This one is bogging down.
History does no such thing a show us when atheism emerged. It may show when it became prominent in history, but most assuredly not its creation. I’ve never read anything that said, “and atheism was created in the year…” Nor have you.
I’ll move on to whatever thread you like.
And as I said Josh, we are not talking here about your imaginary history.
We are talking about recorded history.
As for the Dictionary defintion, one of the ones I produced dates back to the 15th century, and as for you telling me about the origins of A-THEISM, something I’ve had to explain to you here, is laughable.
We know when A-THEISM began. It began around the 15th century. Whether or not some individual personally denied the existence of a god has nothing to do with A-THEISM.
A-THEISM is a DOCTRINE.
Let’s move to the very next thread.
The one on the “LIVING GODESSS”.
See you there.
TYPO CORRECTION:
That was supposed to read, “it began around the 5th Century”.
I’m in the next thread. Already posted for you.
—-
Atheism
(AY-thee-iz-uhm) Denial that there is a God. 1
The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Copyright © 2002
—-
atheism
noun [U]
the belief that God does not exist
Cambridge Dictionary of American English © Cambridge University Press 2008.
—-
Atheism
A”the*ism (#), n. [Cf. F. athéisme. See Atheist.]
1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being
Webster’s Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition
—-
atheism
noun
Absence of belief in the existence of God or deity, gods.
Disbelief in the existence of God or deity, gods.
Etymology: athéisme, from athée “atheist” < (polytonic, ) (atheós) “godless” < (polytonic, á-) a-Prefix_5, (a-) “without”, + (theos) “deity, god”.
AllWords Dictionary.Com\Wiktionary.org
—-
atheism
A’THEISM, n. The disbelief of the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being
Webster’s Dictionary , 1828 edition
—-
Atheism
1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1912 edition
—-
atheism ['ei?iiz?m] noun
the belief that there is no God
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary, © 2000-2006
—-
atheism
noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
——
atheism
(´th-z´´m) (KEY) , denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence, to be distinguished from agnosticism, which holds that the existence cannot be proved.
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-07
—-
ATHEISM (from Gr. a-, privative, and O€6, God), literally a system of belief which denies the existence of God.
Encyclopedia Britannica
—-
a-the-ism
Pronunciation e thi ih zEm
Definition 1. the belief that there is no God.
Wordsmyth.com ©2002 Wordsmyth
—-
atheism
the absolute denial of the existence of God or any other gods. — atheist, n.
-Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc
—-
atheism
n atheism [ˈeiθiizəm]
the belief that there is no God.
Password English Learner’s Dictionary © 1986-2008
—-
a·the·ism (th-zm)
n.
1.
a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000
—-
atheism [aith-ee-iz-zum]
Noun
the belief that there is no God [Greek a- without + theos god]
Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006
Mornin’, JT
I have determined that CroMagnon is the former ‘Bartlebee’
newly returned to, once again, commandeer and disrupt your Blog.
Your call, as always! However, I have a request.
Should he continues to post here, he is not permitted to pervert, or otherwise copy any portion of my writings except in their entirety and then only for purposes of discussion on the blog.
I insist his remarks be written underneath mine, clearly separated, with mine enclosed in quotations.
Whatever this nonsense is, it’s not called debating.
Wow crommy,
I got four comments following my rather brief paragraph. I must be hitting close to home in that somewhere inside you know the truth about yourself and it isn’t pretty. You claim you never insult anyone, but it would take hours of pouring through your inane comments to find the literally hundreds of direct insults you’ve made towards everyone. You’re not worth the effort, because you are unable to learn from experience, or capable of any self insight.
As I accurately predicted, Patty and Michael have returned the facts I have laid out, including dictionary defintions from pretty much every known source, including Enclopedias, references, etc, with nothing but personal insults.
Patty is off on her own little tantrum about something or other, lableing insults, but providing no counter argument.
And she claims I am the one “not debating”.
No Patty, YOU are the one who is not “debating”, but instead resorting to personal attacks, when your untenable position crumbles in the face of the facts I have presented.
And of course we have Michael Spindell, caught producing straw arguments, then LYING about it, then spending the rest of his time lying about his lie, and launching personal insults.
So, all I can do is respond by resubmitting the facts.
They can sit with their personal insults, because apparently that’s all these two have got.
FACT: A-THEISM is a BELIEF SYSTEM.
FACT: A-THEISM, like THEISM, relies on an UNTENABLE position to sell it’s BELIEF SYSTEM
FACT: A-THEISTS, when confronted with fact, turn to personal insult and fabrication, as Patty and Michael have proven here in this debate.
Micheal Spindell said…
You’re not worth the effort, because you are unable to learn from experience, or capable of any self insight.
Well apparently I’m worth something, as you keep coming back for more.
And if by “effort” you mean more Strawmen and LIES, then I assure I promise to “learn” something from your LYING.
Just as I did in your first lies, that you have yet to admit to, or apologize for.
So, allow me to help you into manhood, by showing you your LIES again. So you can recant them, as I know such an erudite and honest person as you profess to be, would want to do.
First, you created your STRAWMAN, claiming I purported that ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins, something I never said, hence, a STRAWMAN you created.
Observe. Here is Micheal Spindell, “SPINNING” his Strawman.
where we part company is in your insistence that ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and more lately Dawkins
Then, when BUSTED on this STRAWMAN (polite word for LIE), you lied outright, denying you ever said the statement above!
Here is Micheal Spindell, DENYING he ever said the statement we have permanently recorded above.
I too never said that you said ” “ALL” atheists repredsent(sis) the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins.”
So we see, that Micheal Spindell, not only invented a STRAWMAN, but he LIED after being caught with the strawman, and has since denied ever lying about it.
Just like the republicans do.
Micheal Spindell, instead of personal attacks and insults that have nothing to do with the debate that you lost, what you need to do is admit that you;
A. CREATED A STRAW ARGUMENT
B. LIED ABOUT EVER SAYING WHAT YOU SAID
C. CONTINUE TO LIE ABOUT NOT LYING
When you can mature enough to do the above, then we can further the debate if you like.
But not until you admit your LIES.
The LIES I have reposted again, for your peruse.
“Well apparently I’m worth something, as you keep coming back for more.”
Actually crommy, I drop by once and a while to post a short message. Your pathology is such, that you can’t resist responding and that keeps you somewhat contained on this thread. Busy here, keeps you from contaminating the other threads with your obsessive drivel.
You are so regular in the proliferation of your vituperation, that it gives me pause to wonder if you aren’t a person, but actually some sort
of sophisticated computer program. That speculation is meaningless though, because in any event you’ve become a bore.
MICHAEL’S STRAWMAN:
where we part company is in your insistence that ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and more lately Dawkins
MICHAEL LYING about his STRAWMAN:
I too never said that you said ” “ALL” atheists repredsent(sis) the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins.”
Poor Michael. No room for “wiggle”.
So Patty now is imploring the bloghost to enforce other bloggers to quote her entire posts, instead of excerpts, as is done in all blogging, debating, literature and legal reference, because apparently patty is not capable of defending her own untenable positions, so now she is making childish demands of the blog host.
Of course no one takes such things seriously, as if someone was forced to post an entire comment when they are merely addressing one statement within the comment, that would help the person being “outed” with misinformation a way to conceal their deceit.
Patty is clearly off her meds, or something, and has other motives her than debate.
She first started by calling me names, and demanding I leave or something, then “TRIED” to debate, got her butt handed to her, and now is crying to the bloghost to censor anyone daring to show her silliness in all it’s glory.
And of course Michael Spindell, too little apparently to admit when he is caught lying, has returned with more insults and name calling, but not one shred of honesty to admit he got caught, LYING.
What a fascinating and rich belief system, you A-THEISTS have there.
Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!
Told you so!
Instead of calling me names Mike, and lying some more, how about you own up to the LIES you already got caught in?
I’m sorry it bothers you that you lied, and got caught, but the fact is you did.
So instead of throwing a babies tantrum, how about growing up, and admitting that you lied, then got caught lying, and lied about that?
Here. In case you missed your lie.
First, you STRAWMAN, where you invented something I never said.
where we part company is in your insistence that ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and more lately Dawkins
Then, your LIE, trying to deny your first lie;
I too never said that you said ” “ALL” atheists repredsent(sis) the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins.”
Please own up to that before calling me any more names.
Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!
Told you so! Again.
I’m sorry Michael, did you need a diaper change or something?
Nyah Nyah Nyah?
Told me what?
You’ve yet to admit to your lie, perhaps you are slipping into some sort of repressed infantle state, where you now merely want to babble, to conceal the fact you got caught in a lie?
Before climbing on your high horse, “or rocking horse”, and “lecturing” me some more while calling me names, I suggest you first admit to your lies.
Once more, I’ll repost them, and continue to do so until we can help you to come to terms with them.
Here they are again.
First your strawman;
where we part company is in your insistence that ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and more lately Dawkins
Then, your lie, denying your every saying the above;
I too never said that you said ” “ALL” atheists repredsent(sis) the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins.”
Please admit, and apologize for lying about me, then lying about lying about me, prior to any more haughty lectures or name calling.
Thank you.
crommy,
You’re going to be trapped in this thread forever, since you lack the willpower to allow anyone else the last word, no matter how silly that word may be.
Oh I’m sorry Micheal. Were you not aware that it is you who is “trapped” in this thread?
Trapped by your lies, which you still have yet to own up too?
Or did you think that somehow your coming back in, and responding, did not constitute your presence here as well?
As for the “last word”, is that your purpose here?
To “get the last word”?
I see.
Well, the last word is usually reserved for the person who has been proven correct.
But I will be happy to give you “the last word” if you like, as soon as you admit to your repeated lies.
And admit, to your now playing silly juvenile games and spouting babble, to try and conceal those lies.
Coming back in the day after being caught lying, into a dead thread and leaving insults and name calling, without admitting to your lies, hardly places you in some lofty position over me.
Instead it shows your immaturity, and dishonesty, in being unable to admit you lied, got caught lying, then lied some more to deny being caught.
Apparently because you’re not big enough to actually debate, and lose a debate, like a gentleman.
If you produce a fact, or position that defeats something I have purported, then you will find I will graciously admit defeat and move on.
You however, having been unable to produce a reasonable argument for your untenable position, resorted to fabricating a position for me, and then when caught on it, turned to lies.
When those lies were exposed, you turned to silly juvenile babbling, and insulting me with your friend patty, who likewise has little debating skills to offer.
If you would like the “last word” as you have thus implied, then by all means take it.
Simply admit to your lies, strawmen and juvenile attempts to distract from them, and I’ll be happy to permit you the dubious honor you seek, of “the last word”.
Did you not say this, inventing a STRAW MAN when confounded with the facts?
where we part company is in your insistence that ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and more lately Dawkins
And then, did you not say this, responding to that STRAWMAN, by lying, and denying you ever said it?
I too never said that you said ” “ALL” atheists repredsent(sis) the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins.”
These are not hard questions Michael, and I doubt anyone other than us and maybe your friend patty is reading this.
But everytime I post these, and you ignore them, coming back with more insults and ridicule over my being here (which is laughable since you too are “here”), you are merely illuminating your own shame at being caught lying, then lying to deny your first lie.
Instead of silly kids games, how about simply admitting your lies to me, and then your insults trying to cover up your lies?
Then you could have that “last word” you apparently covet so dearly.
“So Patty now is imploring the bloghost to enforce other bloggers to quote her entire posts, instead of excerpts, as is done in all blogging, debating, literature and legal reference, because apparently patty is not capable of defending her own untenable positions, so now she is making childish demands of the blog host.”
*********
No, not everyone – just you, ape.
I am more than capable of presenting and defending my arguments
- not to worry.
What I observe and so equally object to are your blatent, obsessive, personal, attention ‘seeking’ behaviors as evidenced by your scrupulously attracted focused selection of only the lesser, dubious, points presented rather than displaying any voluntary consideration of a broader, more worldly view, having been offered as wider, more open, ‘possibilities’…
I can only assume this is the reason you were invited OUT of
Seminary school.
You are positively not inspired. NOT ‘inspirational’.
Possibly positivley uninspirable – in your own mind.
That’s pretty sad.
Not only can you not ‘define’ God, I dare say you’ve had and continue to have difficulty getting your own head around the whole concept of ‘Faith’ – the meaning, or lack of it, in your own life.
At the risk of sounding flip, ‘I doubt it was the Lord callin’ you ‘that’ day, boy – sorry’…
——-
This is, essentially, a Constitutional Law blog.
Well, essentially, a Law blog, anyway.
Not a religious blog – ALTHOUGH, we do get off track an talk about religion … And a FAIR AMOUNT!!! Lately…
However, Bartlebee, aka Cromag’, please know, whatever you need to address personaly in your own life, you would likely be far better served in some variety of an Out-Patient Counseling setting and/or, frankly, a non-threatening, psychiatric, In-Patient Medical facility.
Unfortunately, that would mean NOT here.
The majority of people in the group, here, are not trained in psychology and are not sufficiently familiar with you or your issues to provide the support you so obviously need.
If you don’t believe me, try this:
Define ‘GOD’…!
- right here, right now, successfully, to everyones satisfaction, then, you may declare ‘Victory’!
OR, more likely,
Dial your local Crisis Line 1-800- ***- ****
AND if that doesn’t work, call 911…
… and ask for a ‘ Green Slip ‘ ie in VA, I think
Good Luck!
p.s. If I were you, at least for now, I would RUN away fast
- from religion!
Patty said…
No, not everyone – just you, ape.
I am more than capable of presenting and defending my arguments
- not to worry
Really?
Because your “argument” which you repeated over, claimed A-THEISM was NOT a doctrine
\belief system, which I have demonstrated that it is, by posting not one, but practically every dictionary defintion there is, including Cambridge, Password Learners, not one but THREE editions of Websters, American Heritage, Princetons Wordnet, Collins, and others. I even threw in Encylopedia Brittanica, and the Columbia Encylopedia.
They all say you are wrong.
In fact, your own definition, which you posted from the Oxford Dictionary, ALSO defined A-THEISM as a DOCTRINE, lol.
Your own dictionary proved you wrong.
And your response to being proven wrong, was to cry to the blog host to my comments, insulting me, and name calling, as you did once more above.
Clearly you are not capable of “defending your positions”.
But you certainly are capable, of defending mine.
In fact, you yourself produced
Patty said;
Define ‘GOD’…!
- right here, right now, successfully, to everyones satisfaction, then, you may declare ‘Victory’
As I accurately predicted yesterday, the A-THEIST, when confronted with the facts, folds into a ball of insults, tirades, name calling, and denying proven fact.
I also predicted you would try and paint your opponent, as a THEIST, even though that opponent has said time and time again, that they are neither A-THEIST, or THEIST.
So like your friend, Mike Spindell, who has likewise demonstrated an amazing ability to invent lies and strawmen, you now present your STRAW ARGUMENT, asking someone who doesn’t beleive, to define god.
I don’t need to define god patty, for unlike you, I do not cling to childish belief systems, like THEISM, or A-THEISM.
You however, need to demonstrate your proof, that this god that the THEISTS claim exists, does not.
And in abscence of that proof, your A-THEISM is relegated to the realm of BELIEF SYSTEMS.
Just like the THEISTS.
Just like every DICTIONARY out there tells you.
Whether you’re literate enough to comprehend, or not.
But go ahead Patty. Tell us all again, with your A-THEIST BELIEFS and DOGMA, how all of the Dictionary’s, including the one you produced, are wrong, and you’re right.
—-
Atheism
(AY-thee-iz-uhm) Denial that there is a God. 1
The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Copyright © 2002
—-
atheism
noun [U]
the belief that God does not exist
Cambridge Dictionary of American English © Cambridge University Press 2008.
—-
Atheism
A”the*ism (#), n. [Cf. F. athéisme. See Atheist.]
1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being
Webster’s Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition
—-
atheism
noun
Absence of belief in the existence of God or deity, gods.
Disbelief in the existence of God or deity, gods.
Etymology: athéisme, from athée “atheist” < (polytonic, ) (atheós) “godless” < (polytonic, á-) a-Prefix_5, (a-) “without”, + (theos) “deity, god”.
AllWords Dictionary.Com\Wiktionary.org
—-
atheism
A’THEISM, n. The disbelief of the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being
Webster’s Dictionary , 1828 edition
—-
Atheism
1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1912 edition
—-
atheism ['ei?iiz?m] noun
the belief that there is no God
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary, © 2000-2006
—-
atheism
noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
——
atheism
(´th-z´´m) (KEY) , denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence, to be distinguished from agnosticism, which holds that the existence cannot be proved.
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-07
—-
ATHEISM (from Gr. a-, privative, and O€6, God), literally a system of belief which denies the existence of God.
Encyclopedia Britannica
—-
a-the-ism
Pronunciation e thi ih zEm
Definition 1. the belief that there is no God.
Wordsmyth.com ©2002 Wordsmyth
—-
atheism
the absolute denial of the existence of God or any other gods. — atheist, n.
-Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc
—-
atheism
n atheism [ˈeiθiizəm]
the belief that there is no God.
Password English Learner’s Dictionary © 1986-2008
—-
a•the•ism (th-zm)
n.
1.
a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000
—-
atheism [aith-ee-iz-zum]
Noun
the belief that there is no God [Greek a- without + theos god]
Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006
—-
Go ahead.
Make my day.
Or you can just come back and just randomly insult me, and call me more names, which is all you have done since being proven wrong.
Like your friend Mike, who got caught lying.
Respect my wishes.
Quote my post entirely, in its full context
and then dispute me, rationally, point by point,
or not at all.
It’s as simple as that.
Patty C:
Like you and Michael Spindell (He’s not a liar in any way, by the way), I am tiring of Cro-Bartles repeated references to the dictionary for his foundational argument. While I know that most learned people on the site understand the limitations inherent in any dictionary, I feel it necessary to quote from the Preface of the Oxford English Dictionary which I believe most people would consider the authority in matters of diction and etymology. The writers of that great work carefully explain in the 3rd edition:
“Another myth about the Dictionary, and about dictionaries in general, is that they provide a comprehensive analysis of each word treated. Again, this cannot be the case in a finite text. But more important, philosophically, is that any dictionary attempts to provide information in a manner which is accessible to the reader. In order to do this, it is customary to subdivide polysemous words by their meanings and by the grammatical and syntactic forms in which they are found. However, any extensive examination of the documentary evidence for a language soon uncovers examples of usage which straddle two or more of the stated meanings of a word, often idiosyncratically and in ways which it is not practical for the dictionary to illustrate. The reader should be aware of this incongruity, and should regard the Dictionary as a convenient guide to the history and meaning of the words of the English language, rather than as a comprehensive and exhaustive listing of every possible nuance.”
The above wording is categorized in the Preface under the heading “Distractions,” which I find an apt characterization of Cro-bartles’ “comments” and his impact on this blog.
Patty C
1, August 27, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Respect my wishes.
Quote my post entirely, in its full context
and then dispute me, rationally, point by point,
or not at all.
It’s as simple as that.
Well, perhaps you are as simple as that. I don’t know. But since you have done nothing in this thread but insult, harang, try to disrupt, imply lies about me, call me names, like “ape”, and generally disrespect me, I find it incredibly simple minded that you would presume to demand anything even remotely resembling respect from me, on anything.
However, that being said, if your comments are as short and singular as the one you just posted, I’ll be glad to.
If however, they are the vain, random, multi-page babblings, containing a myriad of positions, supposition, and doctrine and positions from other peoples websites, then I will quote excerpts, as would any other of the several hundred million bloggers currently on the internet.
Or any author, reporters, news journalist, etc.
See, you may not have gotten this far in school yet, I don’t know, but your teachers should teach you a concept at one point, of an “Excerpt”.
An “Excerpt” is not quoting someone out of context or incompletely, but produces a complete thought or idea a writer, author, blogger, etc, has made in a public forum.
Here is the defintion, of the word “Excerpt”, in case it is as your “wishes” suggest, a new concept for you.
—
Main Entry: ex·cerpt
Pronunciation: \ek-ˈsərpt, eg-ˈzərpt, ˈek-ˌ, ˈeg-ˌ\
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Latin excerptus, past participle of excerpere, from ex- + carpere to gather, pluck — more at harvest
Date: 15th century
1 : to select (a passage) for quoting : extract
2 : to take or publish extracts from (as a book)
—
Excerpts do not misrepresent the author, but instead “drill down” and illuminate singular concepts presented by the author, for closer examination by it’s intended audience.
For example, rather than repost my entire comment here, with all the bells and whistles, you could merely summarize this portion of the comment, by quoting me as thus;
your teachers should teach you a concept at one point, of an “Excerpt”.
See how easy that works?
This “excerpt” from my entire comment here, illuminated any casual readers as to the nature of the message I was trying to get across to you. Assuming the readers are literate, and not, illiterate, they will be familiar with the word, and not require the additional lengthy descriptions and reinforcements, or any erratta not related to that concept.
Assuming I wanted the readers to know that I had suggested you learn about excerpts, that one “excerpt” would be enough to bring the point across, to the person or persons of average intelligence.
Thus, excerpts, are perfectly normal methods of debate. In fact, they are the only way. For example, per your method, of quoting the “entire post”, would require a debater, in an oral debate to repeat anothers positions in there entirety each time they wish to reference it to address a specific item.
It would also require commenters on books, or topics, or critics of authors, to actually republish the entire book that they are quoting, when referencing it for either agreement or refutation of a fact in it.
And obviously, republishing the entire book, or even a chapter in the book, merely to address a point or issue in the book, would be absurd, as it would be impossible.
I am sure you are capable of seeing that, now that you have been introduced to the concept of an excerpt.
I will however, be happy to address any specific points, or facts you presented that you feel the omission of, reduced the clarity of the statement I am referencing. You mentioned earlier that you didn’t know what kind of debating I am engaging in, and that type of debating Patty, is called clarity.
Being focused, on specifics, and not debaters to conceal their points in murky rhetoric, erratta, sidetracks, and out and out babble.
Present your position with clarity, and there won’t be the need to so frequently drill it down for you, because the position will be the same each time, and consistent, and the facts will support it. Like the Dictionary. But I will still be using “excerpts” as does JT, Mike Spindell, and every other blogger in here, and blogs all across the world wide web.
A litle girls wishes, do not supersede the rules of competent debate, nor literacy.
I hope this helps.
mespo727272
1, August 27, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Patty C:
Like you and Michael Spindell (He’s not a liar in any way, by the way), I am tiring of Cro-Bartles repeated references to the dictionary for his foundational argument.
Yes, of that I am certain. You are tired of dictionary defintions, that do not agree with your A-THEIST Beliefs.
I am confident it bothers you no end.
The dictionary, is merely a reference material that I, and other bloggers turn to, when dealing with children or the illiterate.
Much like games, like “scrabble” do, or the award winning scholastic television show, “Jeopardy”. Just like Judges do in court, turning to both legal and English dictionary’s when the meaning of a word is challenged.
In fact, it’s what all “literate” people, and adults do, when the generally accepted meaning of a word is challenged. And since everyone except SOME “A-THEISTS”, understand A-THEISM is a “BELIEF SYSTEM”, and you and Patty here, (Your friend Josh crapped out on you, admitting last night repeatedly that A-THEISM is of course merely a belief system), understand that the word means a Belief that God or gods do not exist, turning to the source for English literacy, was of course the natural course of action that any literate person would take.
Of course, if we are talking “tired of”, I must admit to growing somewhat weary, of you, Mike, and your friend Patty here, inventing Strawmen (polite word for a lie) and attributing them to me, as you are here.
You are implying that the foundation of my argument, is the dictionary, which it is not.
I have produced other reference material, including the Encylopedia, A-THEIST publications from the largest A-THEIST group in the US, and even a record from an well known United States Supreme Court case, brought by a large A-THEIST organization against the US Public School System.
And I also provided explicit defintions of my own, along with my reasoning, logic, and plain simple common sense.
So implying that the dictionary, is the “foundation” of my argument, is another soldier from your Straw Army. Because the dictionary, is what I turned to, when basic literacy did not work.
mespo727272
1, August 27, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Patty C:
Like you and Michael Spindell (He’s not a liar in any way, by the way),
Well, I don’t know about all that, but lie he did.
In print.
And your vague unsupported opinion won’t conceal that fact.
In fact, he is still effectively lying, by denying it. And your denying it constitutes your lying too, as I have posted, and reposted his outright lie for all to see, including you.
First, I posted his “Strawman” where he claims I insisted that “ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins.
Micheal said this;
where we part company is in your insistence that ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and more lately Dawkins
Yet this is a lie, because I never said any such thing.
So there is “LIE NUMBER 1″.
Then, when I caught him on this lie (see the value of “excerpts Patty?”), he proceeded to lie about his lie, denying he ever said those words.
I too never said that you said ” “ALL” atheists repredsent(sis) the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins.”
But of course, showing the two claims, side by side, rules out any room for wiggle.
Clarity in this case, wins again.
The lie, is there in black in white.
First, he invents a strawman, then denies ever saying the exact words that he just said.
In PRINT.
So we see, Michael did lie, and not once, but twice in print.
Which explains why you and your tag team partner, Patty, dislike so much having anyone examine too closely your statements.
Because it’s hard to conceal Straw Arguments and lies, when they do.
Dictionary’s and Encyclopedia’s are the last refuge of those with intellectual pretentions, who lack the patience and/or capacity to blend investigation and experience into wisdom and knowledge.
No Michael, they are the only place to turn when dealing with children, the illiterate, or as in your case, the dishonest.
Instead of responding with hubris and lectures, you need to admit your deception that has been reposted now for you several times.
And since you choose to respond with hubris, lectures and omit any responsibilty for having been caught lying, the only course of action is to once more present you with your own words, side by side, so you may once more have the opportunity to admit your attempts at deception, and your perpetuation of that deception, prior to moving forward.
Here is your first like Michael, which you presented in the form of a Straw Argument.
where we part company is in your insistence that ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and more lately Dawkins
Then, when I pointed out to you that I had never spoken those words, which I had not, you became embarrassed at being caught presenting a strawman, and responded, by lying about ever having spoken the above words by claiming just minutes later;
I too never said that you said ” “ALL” atheists repredsent(sis) the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins.”
So we see Michael, not only did you invent a straw argument to try and shore up your untenable position, but then you attempted further deception, by lying about ever saying the words you had spoken only moments earlier.
Thus we see, that it is not I who struggles with “patience” Michael. I am quite patient as you can see by my willingess to respond to the hubris, deception, insults and lies you and your friends here continue to present.
It is you however, who lacks “patience”, which causes you to resort to haughty lectures without substance or facts attached to them, deception, and when caught in the act, out and out lying.
But no worry. My patience is sufficient for the two of us, and I will make extra efforts to ensure that you have ample opportunity to eventually admit your original straw argument, and your lies, and persistent attempts to cover them up.
In fact, it will be my pleasure.
When you are capable of admitting to presenting a straw argument, then not being mature enough to admit it that you did, and then being immature enough to actually lie about saying what you just got through saying, and once you can admit to now perpetuating your lies by denying and or ignoring them, THEN, and ONLY THEN, will you possibly be in a position to start lecturing others on things like “wisdom” “patience” or “knowledge”.
But first you must demonstrate one of the three, by owning up to being caught presenting straw arguments, and lies trying to cover them up.
Until then your empty rhetoric and lectures that address or provide no supporting facts, is just more of your untenable “opinions” trying to cover up your shame at being caught lying.
Focus is what you need Michael. Focus on facts, and not your empty hubris which provides no facts, and ignores your own dishonesty.
And as I said, I am happy to help you focus.
Here is the first lie of yours where you claimed I said something I never said, that needs to be admitted to, and apologized for.
where we part company is in your insistence that ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and more lately Dawkins
Once you demonstrate the wisdom, patience and knowledge to apologize for lying about my position, then you can admit and apologize, for lying about ever saying the above, which you did here;
I too never said that you said ” “ALL” atheists repredsent(sis) the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins.”
Until you can find the wisdom, patience and knowledge capable of admitting to being caught lyng, then your lectures about wisdom, patience and knowledge fall flat, and only add to your overall lack of credibility.
Hope this helps.
Hmmm… still wrestling with whether or not to admit being caught lying. Well, ok, but while you’re summoning the courage to admit it, let us also point out that your pretention that my position relies on the dictionary is as laughable as your other straw men.
As I pointed out last night, I spelled out my position first, with plain logic, and reasoning.
I only turned to the dictionary when simple facts, and literacy, failed you and your friends.
My position does not rely on the dictionary, and you know it. What troubles you, is the dictionary SUPPORTS my position. As does the Encyclopedia, materials published by atheist groups, a US Supreme Court case records, etc. But more than anything, LOGIC, plain, simple, irrefutable logic, supports my position that A-THEISM is a belief system.
In order for A-THEISM to be anything more than a belief, it would first need to be able to prove its founding tenet that a god or gods do not exist. And it cannot. Oh atheists will proclaim they can, others proclaim “we don’t have to”, lol, which of course is the defense of a child.
But prove it, they cannot.
And since A-THEISM cannot prove that founding tenet, it is relegated to the realm of mere speculation and belief.
Just as THEISM is a “belief system”, because THEISTS also cannot prove their founding tenet that a god or gods exist.
If either belief system, THEISM or A-THEISM, could prove their founding tenet, then they would move from a belief system into the realm of scientific fact. But since neither can prove their founding tenet, then both are correctly identified by all reference materials other than their own, as systems of “belief”.
That the dictionaries and Encyclopedia’s disagree with you and support my position is no doubt troubling to you. It must also be uncomfortable for you, to be forced to argue against the array of English dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc, to try and shore up your untenable positions. After all, if any of you attend or attended a college or university, then you know the dictionary is considered authoritative source in debate when the meaning of a word is challenged.
And if any of you have ever practiced law, or been employed in some position that put you in a courtroom on a regular basis, then you know that the Courts of the United States, in all states, districts and provinces, will use the English dictionary as the authoritative source when the meaning of a word in English, is in question. And I do mean all courts, as in the Supreme Court of the United States, which has used the dictionary repeatedly in determining the meanings of words. How frequently you ask?
Well, according to the April, 1994 issue of the Harvard Law Review, the US Supreme Court has used the dictionary as an authoritarian reference for the meanings of words in official cases more than 600 times. And that was in 1994, 14 years ago.
Here, let me say that again.
The US SUPREME COURT has used the DICTIONARY more than SIX HUNDRED TIMES in actual cases to identify the meanings of words.
In fact, according to the same 1994 issue of the Harvard Law Review, the SCOTUS has used the dictionary to define the meaning of words as simple as the word “NO”, to determine if “NO” could be considered a “statement”. The dictionary said yes. So did the court.
So given this is a legal blog, full of what’s supposed to be people familiar with legal matters, as you certainly comment on them enough, one would think you would be aware of the fact that the English dictionary is the go to source for the meanings of English words when their meaning has been challenged throughout our system of justice.
Regardless of attempts by A-THEISTS to argue otherwise because they have “an axe to grind”.
If Colleges, Universities, popular scholastic games like Scrabble, Jeopardy, our court system, and the US Supreme Court all rely on the English dictionary for definitions of English words, then your mocking me for providing you with not one, but nearly a dozen different dictionary definitions from the most prominent dictionaries in our language including not one, but 3 versions of Webster’s, Cambridge, Password Learners, American Heritage, Random House, Princeton’s Wordnet, Collins, and the Kernerman Multi-lingual Dictionary, and even the Oxford English dictionary definition offered by Patty herself that clearly stated A-THEISM was doctrine, not to mention not one but two major encyclopedia’s including Britannica and Columbia, to demonstrate that my definition of A-THEISM is accurate , then your mocking me for doing so is less than erudite.
It shows desperation on your part, and an inability to come to terms with facts as they are presented to you, no doubt egged on by your loyalty to your belief system.
No one said that the dictionary was the “ONLY” source of the definition of the word. Purpose and meaning is demonstrated by the pronouncements of ATHEISM itself, as shown above, the origin of the word along with the first use of the word to define an ATHEIST,(Diagoras), and the declarations of Atheist groups to the Supreme Court, as well as the simple logic that in lieu of demonstrable or observable evidence it must by scientific standard rise no higher than a belief.
Thus mocking me for using the dictionary to support these facts, or worse, pretending as if the dictionary was my only or even primary source, is laughable. And sadly it also demonstrates how a “Belief System” can muddy the thinking of its followers with doctrine and dogma causing them to ignore or dismiss real evidence in favor of a preconceived system of beliefs.
I am however, sorry that the dictionary does not support your positions.
But reason, logic, and the other facts I have presented here, coupled with not one, but a dozen dictionary definitions all stating the same thing, all supporting my position coupled with the fact that in our legal system the dictionary is the source for definitions of words in the English language when the definition is being challenged, as demonstrated by not only our courts on the district and circuit level, but by the highest court in our land, the SCOTUS, all using the English dictionary to define English words in legal cases, makes it clear that A-THEISM is indeed a belief system, as the dictionary defines it.
Not because the Dictionary says so, as your Straw Army tried to assert, but because it cannot prove its founding tenet that there is no god or gods, and in the absence of demonstrable, observable or measurable evidence, your primary tenet is ultimately relegated to a belief. The dictionary merely concurs with that conclusion.
So we see why A-THEISM is “belief system”. NOT because the dictionary says so, but because the cornerstone tenet of A-THEISM has not been demonstrated to be fact. And since A-THEISM cannot prove its founding tenet, it is by definition a belief based system and not a fact based system. Case closed.
When A-THEISM can prove its founding tenet, it will move into the realm of fact based systems. But for now, it is relegated to the realm of beliefs, because it is by definition, and demonstration, simply a belief.
And mocking someone for using dictionaries to support their definition of a word that’s being challenged is laughable and is the bastion of children, the illiterate and the dishonest. When your opponent is responding to numerous dictionary definitions that contradict his definitions with simple “nuh uhs”, they’ve already lost the debate.
Now the only task is to help them come to grips with that fact.
As I said last night. The dictionary was never my only or even primary source for my position.
I spelled out my position plainly and for all to see.
The dictionary was merely what I turned to once logic and literacy failed you.
What’s surprising is your willingness to follow the method of the Theists, and begin arguing with the Dictionary, simply because it supports my position and yours. And as I said above, your arguments constitute little more than what is effectively a bunch of “nuh uhs” and “uh uh’s” and a collection of other peoples words you found on the internet that likewise enjoy criticizing the use of the dictionary.
The dictionary is not the last word on the subject. But the dictionary, supported by the other facts, is.
A-THEISM is a system of belief. A “Doctrine”.
And until A-THEISM can provide demonstrable or observable evidence of its primary tenet, that is that a god or gods do not exist, it will forever be relegated to the realm of beliefs.
Not because the dictionary says so.
But because the facts say so, and the dictionary supports them.
CroMM,
My dispute with you is not about dictionary’s. It is about your willingness to personally attack and demean people in order to “win”
debating points, which you gleefully award yourself. Secondly, you are obsessive in your attacks as shown by your four long answers to my mocking last post. In being obsessive you hog the thread and turn people off. Thirdly, you really do not read peoples comments thoughtfully, but with an eye to picking out those points in their comments that you perceive as weakness. This is not about discussion and a thoughtful exchange of ideas, this is competition to you.
Most of the people posting here are thoughtful and accomplished, including I would think yourself. We spend time here to discuss interesting issues and to exchange ideas. I’m a relative newbie here, though not to other message boards. I enjoy the forum JT has set up and I actually spend far more time reading all the threads, than I do posting. While you have many interesting ideas to share, some with which I agree, your obsession with “winning” is an annoyance and a distraction. Now you can respond by calling me a liar again.
Look Mike, its a debate. When you say things that are not true, then lie about saying them, you should expect someone to call you on them. In all your words here in this last comment, while I appreciate your candor, I also cannot help but notice you have yet to take accountability for posting your first strawman, and then, lying about that strawman. Are you denying you fabricated a position for me, claiming I suggested that all atheists shared the belief system of Ohare and Dawkins?
And are you denying that once I pointed out that you had invented that position for me that you, for want of a better word, lied, about ever saying them? Are you denying that or not? Do I need to repost the words again?
Look Mike. I have nothing against you, or anyone. I merely expect people to debate openly and honestly. That I type faster than you, or my position holds more water than yours, is just how things apparently are. You are free to refute my position, if you can. If you cannot, you are expected to at least bow out gracefully, and not begin inventing straw arguments that I never made, so you can debate an easier position, nor are you expected to lie about that, when caught doing so.
Hell we all do it. Everyone creates straw arguments. I’ve done it. The other bloggers in here have done it. Hell everyone does it from time to time. Its human nature. Its how we debate. I don’t think I’ve ever seen JT do it, but most people do. Just repaint your opponents position in a better light, so that you can argue it more easily. The trick is not to do it in such a way as to change, reduce or add to your opponents position when doing so. Rephrasing or summarizing your opponents position is acceptable debate. Changing it, is not. You changed my position, and reduced it to stating all atheists represent the beliefs of O’hare and Dawkins, something I didn’t even come close to saying. When I caught you on it, you denied ever speaking those words, even though you had posted them just minutes earlier. The thing to do when caught making straw arguments, is to admit it when caught. Not further a straw argument by lying about ever making it. A straw argument is a deception, and poor way to debate, but it is not nearly as bad as outright lying.
I don’t think you’re a “liar” Mike, but I do think the ego problem you are trying to paint me with is really your own. After all, it was not I who got caught creating straw arguments and then lied about it even after seeing my own words reposted for my retraction. When Dan Rather was exposed for presenting questionable material, if he had just made a simple recant of the story, it would have ended there. News stations have to do it all the time. But what cost him his job, was his unwillingness to retract the story until the documents could be further verified. Now he wasn’t really lying there, he was just ill informed, but the point is, he could have made matters easy by simply saying “yes, you are correct, this document is in question”. When he didn’t, it cost him his job. And you could have ended the matter and moved forward in the debate with me, simply by admitting your mistake when you first made the O’Hare Dawkins claim.
You didn’t. Instead you chose to lie about ever saying it, then simply mock me and lecture me for days on end, without ever once admitting what you did. You didn’t even admit it in all your words above to me today.
As for my not reading peoples comments thoughtfully, that is another straw argument, as clearly, I put a lot of thought, and pay a lot of attention to other peoples comments. In fact, I obviously pay more attention to peoples comments than anyone in here, as most people that I’ve debated over the past few days, seem to forget not only what I said 5 minutes earlier, but what they themselves said 5 minutes earlier. Criticizing my “picking peoples comments apart” is clearly nothing more than sour grapes on your part, for not being capable or willing to pay as much attention to someones comments that permits you to drill down to specifics.
It’s called clarity. It is why we have excerpts from books, news reports, articles, quotes, statements, etc, in all forms of printed and verbal communication. The concept of an excerpt is the foundation to all debate and investigation. Like Patty, you too seem to have difficulties with someone examining your words that closely. I know it’s uncomfortable sometimes, to see what you said, but it’s the only way to be clear, and not cloud points and concepts, in a mish mash of flowery words, like I am doing now, trying to appease you.
When I debate, and I have been debating on the Internet now, for several years, I am specific. Clear, and to the point. I quote my opponent warmly and accurately, and usually use their own words, so as not to be tempted into creating straw arguments. Rephrasing someone’s position, is a good way to find yourself launching straw arguments, so its always a good idea, to quote the persons statement(s) that you are attempting to refute. I do it more to keep myself honest, than I do to “win”. Failing to do so is one reason why there are so many straw arguments launched in blogs. Its laziness. Bloggers are just too lazy to actually scroll up, and read and quote from the persons comments. They read it once, get mad, and begin summarizing, paraphrasing and invariably end up changing the persons position altogether.
Quotes, will keep one honest.
So accusing me, of wanting so badly to “win”, when it was you yourself who quickly turned to straw arguments, then lies denying ever saying words that anyone could see you had just said only minutes earlier, is pretty lame. Apparently it is you who are the one who is “so” concerned with “winning” that you are willing to throw out honesty and accountability when your position is faltering and turn to hubristic lectures that really should not be offered until you own up to your own shortcomings with the truth.
In turn, I try to state my position, clearly, articulately as my GED education permits, and repeat it often, so there is no implied nor perceived ambiguity. People who like long winded posts like the one I’ve just written, usually have vague and often unsure positions, and rather than be pinned down on those positions they seek to obfuscate and detract by burying their position in a barrage of words and paragraphs so that summary is difficult. Its a technique you’ll see from many debaters in here, who I have already encountered.
That is why I am specific. That is why I am clear. That is why I quote people directly and always restate my position so that there is no question as to what I, or the other party said or is saying. I do not always seek to “win”. I seek to be clear. And I like facts, not peoples “opinions” or ambiguous rhetoric, particularly when authoritative references like our English Dictionary, do not support them.
Which is why whenever I encounter a debate with atheists, I always make it clear up front, that atheism is a belief system. If I don’t, most atheists I’ve encountered in these blogs will try to obfuscate the true nature of their doctrines and beliefs, into something more erudite and scientific than what it really is. And they do this in an attempt to elevate themselves above the Theists.
Unfortunately, most debates never get past that point. Except for a few more intellectual atheists I’ve encountered, most will never get past the point of whether or not atheism is a belief system, which of course, as logic, the dictionary, and all reference material we have on the subject not written by atheists or their apologists, says it is.
I would however love to get beyond that point with an atheist in one of these blogs one day, so as to really discuss the nature of things, and ideas, concepts, and such.But unfortunately, most atheists are still grappling with the idea that the fact system they thought they were embracing is little more than a belief system, like the Theists they seek to dismiss.
Science is a fact based system. Theism and Atheism, are not.
That doesn’t mean it’s not correct belief. It just means its belief. Whether or not Theism or Atheism contain facts, is a debate or discussion we never can get to because most atheists can never get past the notion that theirs is a belief system too. So, rather than discussing the topic they instead obfuscate, detract, insult, name call, and in your case, create straw arguments then be dishonest about doing so.
I merely stick to the point, stick to the facts, quote my opponents so as not to be lulled into returning a straw defense, and maybe toss in a little sarcasm aimed at illuminating the fallacy of a concept or ideal. That I play hardball is not in doubt when it comes to being clear, and being specific, but considering the names I’ve been called and considering my position is correct in that Atheism is a belief system, it seems benign by way of comparison. I think the problem here is some people are too sensitive to a little ribbing, too sensitive about their own belief system and the fact that it’s a belief system, and too proud to admit when they’ve been demonstrated to be wrong.
If this had been a debate with a republican over some partisan issue, and not one but all major dictionaries and encyclopedia’s supported your position and not the republicans, there is no doubt whatsoever that you would declare the matter closed and your republican opponent readily trounced.
So to attack me, lecture me, call me names, etc, when not one but all dictionaries quoted support my position, and not yours, that atheism is indeed a system of belief, and not a system of fact, is hypocritical and very nearsighted. An erudite blogger, when confronted with the facts, and close to a dozen dictionary definitions denouncing their claim, would simply concede the position and move on in the discussion. But here we have seen you, Patty, and others, continue to challenge me on this topic, or simply lecture me for being so committed to “winning” or mean spirited for sticking to my position. It thus seems ironic now, that in your second complaint you accuse me of being obsessive, when you and the others continue to “come back for more”. I show conclusive logic and you say “nuh uh” and come back for more. I produce documentation from Encyclopedia’s and you say “nuh uh” and come back for more. I produce Supreme Court cases with defintions, Atheist published materials, etc, you say “nuh uh” and come back for more. I produce a dictionary defintion which defines atheism as a belief and you say “nuh uh” and come back for more. I produce four more dictionary definitions that support the logic you cannot seem to grasp, and you say nuh uh and come back for more. Then I produce half a dozen more dictionaries that all support the fact that atheism is a system of belief, and you say nuh uh and come back for more.
I am only responding to your challenges and lectures. That I apparently type faster than you “accomplished folk” is apparently some sort of anomaly, as surely someone as myself with such a rudimentary education in our public schools and maybe a year or so of community college under his belt, and the luck to be taught a little history and language by the Catholics, could possibly do anything better or quicker than this learned quorum of attorneys, doctors, scholars and the like.
I was blue collar for the bulk of my life. I am still only starched blue collar, and do not hold degrees in law, medicine, or even butterfly catching like you fine people. I am what your crowd normally refers to as “street people”, although I do posses a modest dwelling, humble as it may be. I never graduated college, never even finished high school, opting for a GED. I do not teach, profess, prophecy or make pretense, I merely debate, and let the facts fall where they may. As one of my early childhood heroes, Popeye would say, “I am what I am and iz what I iz”. If my debating style offends you, then perhaps not engaging me in debate would provide you with a venue more to your comfort level. But if you should opt for the alternative, then be prepared to be quoted, warmly and accurately, (cut and paste even), have your statements or positions challenged, dissected and disproved, or, on that rare occasion when you find yourself at a superior altitude, nodded to in deference to your fine “win”. I enjoy debate. Real debate. Not the meaningless idle chatter I can find in any blog where a click of cyber-friends echoes each others sentiments with flattery and fawning, and shuns bloggers with opposing views who will not state their views once politely immediatly shutting up so as to permit them to be mocked and dismissed erroneously without contestation.
I was correct in my statement that atheism is a belief. I used an inflammatory word “offensive” which actually originated out of lazy brain more than trying to be inflammatory. I meant to say oppositional but didn’t think of the word in time to beat my fingers. But no one paid attention to the clarifications made post that word, which was only used once, and then explained, and instead painted me as a Theist, and a rube, for suggesting Atheism is a belief system, which of course one only has to look as far as the dictionary to know that, assuming their minds cannot formulate the logic required to know it without looking at the dictionary.
I have nothing against you Mike, and I enjoy debating you, however I require in my debate opponents very little, other than the willingness to admit when some form of deception, intentional or not, is illuminated, and not to obfuscate further by denying it, thus turning a simple straw man position, into an out right lie.
That being said, I do not think you are a liar, but I do think your ego, the one you accused me of having, is keeping you from admitting you got caught inventing a straw man and were too embarrassed for whatever reason to admit it, and thus ended up lying about it. It also has kept you lecturing me as you did once more, instead of simply owning up to it so we can move on.
When you can own up to creating that straw argument and the subsequent kinard, then we can happily move past that if you like. After this many days, it won’t be worth very much, but it will put the matter to rest.
CroMM,
The point is merely that debate is uninteresting and always about winning and losing. Discussion is about exchanging ideas and maybe learning something new. I respect that you are obviously so intelligent given limited educational opportunities. I am also blue collar, but I was lucky enough to win an Ivy League Master’s scholarship. My father dropped out of school in the 9th grade and yet he still is one of the smartest people I’ve ever known. The real truth is that most education is like fraternity hazing (I was never in a fraternity)in that its not what you’re taught, but the fact you’ve lived through it. I’ve never had a lot of money in my life because I’ve always worked at jobs helping people, but I’ve loved my work. I spent a lot of time working two jobs and my wife working one, just to ensure my kids had what they needed. So I appreciate how open about yourself you’ve been here.
How about putting debating aside and trying to relate as people without the need for winners and losers? I’m sure you would enjoy the process more and we all would enjoy your input.
Mike
No Mike, the “point” was about you fabricating a statement, attributing it to me, and then lying about ever saying the statement you had just said minutes earlier.
And the “point” is, that you are still busy lecturing me, rather than taking responsibility for being caught lying, not once, but several times.
So that you find debating “uninteresting” is no suprise.
After all, when you cannot lie freely without having it get exposed, and when that is apparently all you’ve got to offer, I am sure the debate gets quickly uninteresting.
When you are ready to admit your lie about what I said, and then lying about what you said, I’ll be ready.
Until then, quit crying about making friends and playing nice.
Its a BLOG.
Not Romper Room.
Guys… this is an obvious satire (and/or mockery). It sure as hell isn’t a sincere portrayal of atheism (and what would be their imagery, anyway? Ponder that for awhile). It didn’t come from homosexual advocates, so that’s not its agenda. It’s was turned out solely to insult and/or get the ire of NON-atheists (in particular and obviously, in this case, the Christians).
Analogy: you’re into bananas. I’m into oranges – - but I submit a poster of ROTTEN bananas, or a twisted banana trying to have sex with itself. Got it? That’s why it’s wrong.
etc etc etc – niblet aka dundar aka martha aka martha h aka bartlebee aka zakimar aka cromag’non’man aka jim winchester
http://jonathanturley.org/2008/07/28/getting-right-with-god-church-shooter-allegedly-targeted-knoxville-church-due-to-its-liberal-views/
mespo727272 1, July 29, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Patty C:
Unless we see more, you’ve won with the “under” bet since he only went for 7 hysterical replies. I am guessing more is to come, but I am willing to concede defeat. I also think we should nominate Gyges for the Euphemism Award after our hero’s diatribe against him for something he didn’t say and in response to a question to someone other than our comical friend. “Wordy”, how’s that for avoiding the real thing? Bravo Gyges! I haven’t wanted this to be competitive, but in my sport we do know victory is at hand when we get into the head of the opponent. We’re there and it’s vast, desolate, and scary. Yikes!
jonathanturley 1, July 30, 2008 at 8:01 am
BARTLEBEE:
I have removed three of your comments which included foul language directed at another person. This site is committed to civil discourse. I do not want to bar or censor anyone on a site that has free speech focus, but we need to maintain a minimal standard of civility in discourse. Also, I would appreciate it if you would try to combine some of your comments rather than have four or five one-line comments following in one after another. The problem is that there is a limit on the number of comments which appear on the opening page. We welcome continued exchanges and dialogues. However, having four comments in an uninterrupted line prevents other comments from being visible for the other readers on the home page comments column.
JT
BARTLEBEE 1, July 30, 2008 at 2:07 pm
No problem JT.
Since you permit bloggers like mespo and patty to attack new bloggers, unprovoked, and litteraly badger them until they finally retort with some uncivility of their own, and then penalize the blogger who dares respond to the non stop stalking attacks of your two favorite friends, I will do you one better.
I’ll leave your blog and never post in it again.
You guys spend your days damning the right for cronyism, yet clearly it is a dual standard when it comes to your own.
Notice not one word to mespo or patty, about their non stop attacks on me.
Not one word about how they follow me from thread to thread, insult me, harrass me, demonize me, and generally try and interfere with my comments to other bloggers.
Just let them piss me off enough to wear I might use some questionable language, and then walla. Here comes the teacher to chastize me for responding to these two GOONS you keep on hand to drive out anyone who won’t goosestep to the blog beat.
This isn’t a vehicle for free expression, nor does the free speech you so loudly proclaim on Countdown exist here.
What you have here, is an “ECHO CHAMBER”, where bully liberals like messpo and patty c, are permitted to drive out new bloggers by badgering them until they either leave, or react in a way that draws your rebuke.
Well, you can “say” you don’t like to censor all you want, but you just censored me, and without so much as an inkling of alluding to the bloggers, who harrassed me until I finaly let loose with some bad language, obviously to try and discourage them from talking to me.
I don’t talk that way, it should have been obvious to you that my intent was to make it unpleasent for them to keep harrassing me.
But apparently that was neither visible to you, or you just didn’t care. Either way, I won’t hang out in an ECHO CHAMBER, where left WINGNUTS like Patty and your pal messpo, are permitted to badger bloggers, but responses from those bloggers are censored and stifled.
I really thought you believed the stuff you say on Countdown, and who knows, maybe you do.
You just don’t practice it yourself.
So I will bid you good morning sir, and leave you to your ECHO CHAMBER, so you guys can “talk” about free speech.
Oh… and in case I don’t see you, good afternoon, good evening, and goodnight.
******************
When are you leaving-again? So we can mark our calendars in gleeful anticipation…
Hello Guru, what entice you to post an article. This article was extremely interesting, especially since I was searching for thoughts on this subject last week.
Very nice , thanks a sharing.